On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 10:11:19AM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 03:28:42PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Right, but LSMs usually only retrieve their own xattr namespace (ima,
> selinux, smack) or they calculate hashes for xattrs based on the raw
> filesystem xattr values (evm).
>
> But this new bpf_getxattr() is different. It allows to retrieve _any_
> xattr in any security hook it can be attached to. So someone can write a
> bpf program that retrieves filesystem capabilites or posix acls. And
> these are xattrs that require higher-level vfs involvement to be
> sensible in most contexts.
>
> So looking at:
>
> 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);
>
> if (xattr_sz <= 0)
> return;
>
> if (!bpf_strncmp(dir_xattr_value, sizeof(XATTR_VALUE), XATTR_VALUE))
> result = 1;
> }
>
> This hooks a bpf-lsm program to the security_bprm_committed_creds()
> hook. It then retrieves the extended attributes of the file to be
> executed. The hook currently always retrieves the raw filesystem values.
>
> But for example any XATTR_NAME_CAPS filesystem capabilities that
> might've been stored will be taken into account during exec. And both
> the idmapping of the mount and the caller matter when determing whether
> they are used or not.
>
> But the current implementation of bpf_getxattr() just ignores both. It
> will always retrieve the raw filesystem values. So if one invokes this
> hook they're not actually retrieving the values as they are seen by
> fs/exec.c. And I'm wondering why that is ok? And even if this is ok for
> some use-cases it might very well become a security issue in others if
> access decisions are always based on the raw values.
>
> I'm not well-versed in this so bear with me, please.
If this is really just about retrieving the "security.bpf" xattr and no
other xattr then the bpf_getxattr() variant should somehow hard-code
that to ensure that no other xattrs can be retrieved, imho.
