netdev - Re: [PATCH v4 2/20] lsm: Refactor return value of LSM hook inode_need

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <b78ced92-78a4-41d2-8d2b-248f8bb43abb@huaweicloud.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2024 17:27:56 +0800
From: Xu Kuohai <xukuohai@...weicloud.com>
To: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
 selinux@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
 Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
 Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, Eduard Zingerman
 <eddyz87@...il.com>, Song Liu <song@...nel.org>,
 Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>,
 John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
 Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
 Matt Bobrowski <mattbobrowski@...gle.com>,
 Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@...omium.org>, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
 "Serge E . Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
 Khadija Kamran <kamrankhadijadj@...il.com>,
 Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
 Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@...hat.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
 John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>,
 Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>,
 Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>,
 Shung-Hsi Yu <shung-hsi.yu@...e.com>, Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>,
 Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
 Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
 Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...merspace.com>,
 Anna Schumaker <anna@...nel.org>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
 Stephen Smalley <stephen.smalley.work@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/20] lsm: Refactor return value of LSM hook
 inode_need_killpriv

On 7/19/2024 10:08 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Jul 11, 2024 Xu Kuohai <xukuohai@...weicloud.com> wrote:
>>
>> To be consistent with most LSM hooks, convert the return value of
>> hook inode_need_killpriv to 0 or a negative error code.
>>
>> Before:
>> - Both hook inode_need_killpriv and func security_inode_need_killpriv
>>    return > 0 if security_inode_killpriv is required, 0 if not, and < 0
>>    to abort the operation.
>>
>> After:
>> - Both hook inode_need_killpriv and func security_inode_need_killpriv
>>    return 0 on success and a negative error code on failure.
>>    On success, hook inode_need_killpriv sets output param @need to true
>>    if security_inode_killpriv is required, and false if not. When @need
>>    is true, func security_inode_need_killpriv sets ATTR_KILL_PRIV flag
>>    in @attr; when false, it clears the flag.
>>    On failure, @need and @attr remains unchanged.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Xu Kuohai <xukuohai@...wei.com>
>> ---
>>   fs/attr.c                     |  5 ++---
>>   fs/inode.c                    |  4 +---
>>   include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h |  2 +-
>>   include/linux/security.h      | 20 ++++++++++++++++----
>>   security/commoncap.c          | 12 ++++++++----
>>   security/security.c           | 29 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>>   6 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> 
> In general I think a lot of these changes are a good improvement, thank
> you very much for the time and effort you've spent on this.  However,
> I'm not in favor of passing the new hook parameter as a way of reducing
> the number of states represented by the security_inode_killpriv() return
> value.  This particular hook may need to remain as one of the odd special
> cases.
> 

I learned from previous discussions [1] to use a new output parameter to store
odd return values. Actually, I am not in favor of this method either, especially
since it requires extra work to enable BPF to access the output parameter. I
think we could just keep it as-is.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CAHC9VhQ_sTmoXwQ_AVfjTYQe4KR-uTnksPVfsei5JZ+VDJBQkA@mail.gmail.com/