On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 01:51:39PM +0100, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> On Mon, 2023-01-30 at 14:57 -0800, Fan Wu wrote:
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * ipe_mmap_file - ipe security hook function for mmap check.
> > + * @f: File being mmap'd. Can be NULL in the case of anonymous memory.
> > + * @reqprot: The requested protection on the mmap, passed from usermode.
> > + * @prot: The effective protection on the mmap, resolved from reqprot and
> > + * system configuration.
> > + * @flags: Unused.
> > + *
> > + * This hook is called when a file is loaded through the mmap
> > + * family of system calls.
> > + *
> > + * Return:
> > + * * 0 - OK
> > + * * !0 - Error
> > + */
> > +int ipe_mmap_file(struct file *f, unsigned long reqprot, unsigned long prot,
> > + unsigned long flags)
> > +{
> > + struct ipe_eval_ctx ctx = { 0 };
> > +
> > + if (prot & PROT_EXEC || reqprot & PROT_EXEC) {
>
> Since the kernel only adds flags and doesn't clear them, isn't safe to
> just consider prot? Oh, you mentioned it in the changelog, maybe just
> for ipe_file_mprotect().
>
Thanks for pointing that out, yes reqprot it indeed unnecessary, I will remove
this part in the next version.
> > + build_eval_ctx(&ctx, f, ipe_op_exec);
> > + return ipe_evaluate_event(&ctx);
> > + }
>
> Uhm, I think some considerations that IMA does for mmap() are relevant
> also for IPE.
>
> For example, look at mmap_violation_check(). It checks if there are
> writable mappings, and if yes, it denies the access.
>
> Similarly for mprotect(), is adding PROT_EXEC safe?
>
Yes, writable mapping might need to treat differently. But for the current version
I think it is safe because currently we only support dmverity and fsverity,
they are inherently read-only.
But if in the future if there is a feature can support writable mapping, IPE might
better provide user the flexibility to allow or deny execute writable mappings,
for example, adding a new property like file_writable=TRUE. Then user can deploy
a rule like op=EXECUTE file_writable=TRUE action=DENY to deny execute a writable
mapping.
> >
> > @@ -12,6 +13,11 @@ static struct lsm_blob_sizes ipe_blobs __lsm_ro_after_init = {
> >
> > static struct security_hook_list ipe_hooks[] __lsm_ro_after_init = {
> > LSM_HOOK_INIT(sb_free_security, ipe_sb_free_security),
> > + LSM_HOOK_INIT(bprm_check_security, ipe_bprm_check_security),
> > + LSM_HOOK_INIT(mmap_file, ipe_mmap_file),
> > + LSM_HOOK_INIT(file_mprotect, ipe_file_mprotect),
> > + LSM_HOOK_INIT(kernel_read_file, ipe_kernel_read_file),
> > + LSM_HOOK_INIT(kernel_load_data, ipe_kernel_load_data),
> > };
>
> Uhm, maybe I would incorporate patch 1 with this.
>
> Roberto
This might not be possible because this patch has some dependencies on the previous patches.
-Fan
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
