netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH v1 1/2] landlock: Fix non-TCP sockets restriction

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20241005.ooQuae7EHae9@digikod.net>
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2024 17:55:47 +0200
From: Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>
To: Mikhail Ivanov <ivanov.mikhail1@...wei-partners.com>, 
	Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
Cc: gnoack@...gle.com, willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com, 
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, 
	yusongping@...wei.com, artem.kuzin@...wei.com, konstantin.meskhidze@...wei.com, 
	Matthieu Buffet <matthieu@...fet.re>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 1/2] landlock: Fix non-TCP sockets restriction

On Sat, Oct 05, 2024 at 05:49:59PM +0200, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 04, 2024 at 09:16:56PM +0300, Mikhail Ivanov wrote:
> > On 10/4/2024 1:13 PM, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 04, 2024 at 12:30:02AM +0300, Mikhail Ivanov wrote:
> > > > On 10/3/2024 8:45 PM, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> > > > > Please also add Matthieu in Cc for the network patch series.
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Thu, Oct 03, 2024 at 10:39:31PM +0800, Mikhail Ivanov wrote:
> > > > > > Do not check TCP access right if socket protocol is not IPPROTO_TCP.
> > > > > > LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_BIND_TCP and LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_CONNECT_TCP
> > > > > > should not restrict bind(2) and connect(2) for non-TCP protocols
> > > > > > (SCTP, MPTCP, SMC).
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Closes: https://github.com/landlock-lsm/linux/issues/40
> > > > > > Fixes: fff69fb03dde ("landlock: Support network rules with TCP bind and connect")
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Mikhail Ivanov <ivanov.mikhail1@...wei-partners.com>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >    security/landlock/net.c | 2 +-
> > > > > >    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > diff --git a/security/landlock/net.c b/security/landlock/net.c
> > > > > > index bc3d943a7118..6f59dd98bb13 100644
> > > > > > --- a/security/landlock/net.c
> > > > > > +++ b/security/landlock/net.c
> > > > > > @@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ static int current_check_access_socket(struct socket *const sock,
> > > > > >    		return -EACCES;
> > > > > >    	/* Checks if it's a (potential) TCP socket. */
> > > > > 
> > > > > We can extend this comment to explain that we don't use sk_is_tcp()
> > > > > because we need to handle the AF_UNSPEC case.
> > > > 
> > > > Indeed, I'll do this.
> > 
> > I've noticed that we still should check sk->sk_family = AF_INET{,6}
> > here (so sk_is_tcp() is suitable). AF_UNSPEC can be only related to
> > addresses and we should not provide any checks (for address) if socket
> > is unrestrictable (i.e. it's not TCP). It's not useful and might lead to
> > error incosistency for non-TCP sockets.
> 
> Good catch, let's use sk_is_tcp().
> 
> > 
> > Btw, I suppose we can improve error consistency by bringing more checks
> > from INET/TCP stack. For example it may be useful to return EISCONN
> > instead of EACCES while connect(2) is called on a connected socket.
> 
> Yes, that would be nice (with the related tests).
> 
> > 
> > This should be done really carefully and only for some useful cases.
> > Anyway it's not related to the current patch (since it's not a bug).
> 
> Sure.
> 
> The following patch series could probably be extended for all LSM to
> benefit from these fixes:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240327120036.233641-1-mic@digikod.net/
> 
> Mikhail, according to your SCTP tests with SELinux, it looks like this
> patch series should be updated, but that should be simple.
> 
> Paul, what is the status of this LSM patch series?  Could Mikhail
> integrate this LSM patch (with the SCTP fix) as part of the current
> Landlock patch series?  This would help fixing the Landlock tests (which
> check SCTP error consistency) when run with SELinux.

Well, this whole LSM network check should probably be part of another
patch series.  For now, let's just fix SELinux (and check that other
LSMs don't return wrong error codes).