On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 10:52 AM KP Singh <kpsingh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 7:33 PM Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 04:19:48PM +0000, KP Singh wrote:
> > > A simple test that adds an xattr on a copied /bin/ls and reads it back
> > > when the copied ls is executed.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: KP Singh <kpsingh@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > .../testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/xattr.c | 54 +++++++++++++++++++
>
> [...]
>
> > > +SEC("lsm.s/bprm_committed_creds")
> > > +void BPF_PROG(bprm_cc, struct linux_binprm *bprm)
> > > +{
> > > + struct task_struct *current = bpf_get_current_task_btf();
> > > + char dir_xattr_value[64] = {0};
> > > + int xattr_sz = 0;
> > > +
> > > + xattr_sz = bpf_getxattr(bprm->file->f_path.dentry,
> > > + bprm->file->f_path.dentry->d_inode, XATTR_NAME,
> > > + dir_xattr_value, 64);
> >
> > Yeah, this isn't right. You're not accounting for the caller's userns
> > nor for the idmapped mount. If this is supposed to work you will need a
> > variant of vfs_getxattr() that takes the mount's idmapping into account
> > afaict. See what needs to happen after do_getxattr().
>
> Thanks for taking a look.
>
> So, If I understand correctly, we don't need xattr_permission (and
> other checks in
> vfs_getxattr) here as the BPF programs run as CAP_SYS_ADMIN.
>
> but...
>
> So, Is this bit what's missing then?
>
> error = vfs_getxattr(mnt_userns, d, kname, ctx->kvalue, ctx->size);
> if (error > 0) {
> if ((strcmp(kname, XATTR_NAME_POSIX_ACL_ACCESS) == 0) ||
> (strcmp(kname, XATTR_NAME_POSIX_ACL_DEFAULT) == 0))
> posix_acl_fix_xattr_to_user(mnt_userns, d_inode(d),
> ctx->kvalue, error);
That will not be correct.
posix_acl_fix_xattr_to_user checking current_user_ns()
is checking random tasks that happen to be running
when lsm hook got invoked.
KP,
we probably have to document clearly that neither 'current*'
should not be used here.
xattr_permission also makes little sense in this context.
If anything it can be a different kfunc if there is a use case,
but I don't see it yet.
bpf-lsm prog calling __vfs_getxattr is just like other lsm-s that
call it directly. It's the kernel that is doing its security thing.
