On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 01:49:34PM -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 12:25 PM Casey Schaufler <casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On 3/24/2020 7:58 AM, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 10:50 AM KP Singh <kpsingh@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >> On 24-Mär 10:35, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> > >>> On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 12:46 PM KP Singh <kpsingh@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >>>> From: KP Singh <kpsingh@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >>>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/bpf_lsm.c b/kernel/bpf/bpf_lsm.c
> > >>>> index 530d137f7a84..2a8131b640b8 100644
> > >>>> --- a/kernel/bpf/bpf_lsm.c
> > >>>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/bpf_lsm.c
> > >>>> @@ -9,6 +9,9 @@
> > >>>> #include <linux/btf.h>
> > >>>> #include <linux/lsm_hooks.h>
> > >>>> #include <linux/bpf_lsm.h>
> > >>>> +#include <linux/jump_label.h>
> > >>>> +#include <linux/kallsyms.h>
> > >>>> +#include <linux/bpf_verifier.h>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> /* For every LSM hook that allows attachment of BPF programs, declare a NOP
> > >>>> * function where a BPF program can be attached as an fexit trampoline.
> > >>>> @@ -27,6 +30,32 @@ noinline __weak void bpf_lsm_##NAME(__VA_ARGS__) {}
> > >>>> #include <linux/lsm_hook_names.h>
> > >>>> #undef LSM_HOOK
> > >>>>
> > >>>> +#define BPF_LSM_SYM_PREFX "bpf_lsm_"
> > >>>> +
> > >>>> +int bpf_lsm_verify_prog(struct bpf_verifier_log *vlog,
> > >>>> + const struct bpf_prog *prog)
> > >>>> +{
> > >>>> + /* Only CAP_MAC_ADMIN users are allowed to make changes to LSM hooks
> > >>>> + */
> > >>>> + if (!capable(CAP_MAC_ADMIN))
> > >>>> + return -EPERM;
> > >>> I had asked before, and will ask again: please provide an explicit LSM
> > >>> hook for mediating whether one can make changes to the LSM hooks.
> > >>> Neither CAP_MAC_ADMIN nor CAP_SYS_ADMIN suffices to check this for SELinux.
> > >> What do you think about:
> > >>
> > >> int security_check_mutable_hooks(void)
> > >>
> > >> Do you have any suggestions on the signature of this hook? Does this
> > >> hook need to be BPF specific?
> > > I'd do something like int security_bpf_prog_attach_security(const
> > > struct bpf_prog *prog) or similar.
> > > Then the security module can do a check based on the current task
> > > and/or the prog. We already have some bpf-specific hooks.
> >
> > I *strongly* disagree with Stephen on this. KRSI and SELinux are peers.
> > Just as Yama policy is independent of SELinux policy so KRSI policy should
> > be independent of SELinux policy. I understand the argument that BDF programs
> > ought to be constrained by SELinux, but I don't think it's right. Further,
> > we've got unholy layering when security modules call security_ functions.
> > I'm not saying there is no case where it would be appropriate, but this is not
> > one of them.
>
> I explained this previously. The difference is that the BPF programs
> are loaded from a userspace
> process, not a kernel-resident module. They already recognize there
> is a difference here or
> they wouldn't have the CAP_MAC_ADMIN check above in their patch. The
> problem with that
> check is just that CAP_MAC_ADMIN doesn't necessarily mean fully
> privileged with respect to
> SELinux, which is why I want an explicit hook. This gets a NAK from
> me until there is such a hook.
Doesn't the existing int (*bpf_prog)(struct bpf_prog *prog); cover
SELinux's need here? I.e. it can already examine that a hook is being
created for the LSM (since it has a distinct type, etc)?
--
Kees Cook
