On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 11:37:16AM -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote: > On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 11:33 AM Mickaël Salaün <mic@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Enable to forbid access to files open with O_MAYEXEC. Thanks to the > > noexec option from the underlying VFS mount, or to the file execute > > permission, userspace can enforce these execution policies. This may > > allow script interpreters to check execution permission before reading > > commands from a file, or dynamic linkers to allow shared object loading. > > > > Add a new sysctl fs.open_mayexec_enforce to enable system administrators > > to enforce two complementary security policies according to the > > installed system: enforce the noexec mount option, and enforce > > executable file permission. Indeed, because of compatibility with > > installed systems, only system administrators are able to check that > > this new enforcement is in line with the system mount points and file > > permissions. A following patch adds documentation. > > > > For tailored Linux distributions, it is possible to enforce such > > restriction at build time thanks to the CONFIG_OMAYEXEC_STATIC option. > > The policy can then be configured with CONFIG_OMAYEXEC_ENFORCE_MOUNT and > > CONFIG_OMAYEXEC_ENFORCE_FILE. > > > > Being able to restrict execution also enables to protect the kernel by > > restricting arbitrary syscalls that an attacker could perform with a > > crafted binary or certain script languages. It also improves multilevel > > isolation by reducing the ability of an attacker to use side channels > > with specific code. These restrictions can natively be enforced for ELF > > binaries (with the noexec mount option) but require this kernel > > extension to properly handle scripts (e.g., Python, Perl). To get a > > consistent execution policy, additional memory restrictions should also > > be enforced (e.g. thanks to SELinux). > > > > Signed-off-by: Mickaël Salaün <mic@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > Reviewed-by: Thibaut Sautereau <thibaut.sautereau@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > > diff --git a/fs/namei.c b/fs/namei.c > > index 33b6d372e74a..70f179f6bc6c 100644 > > --- a/fs/namei.c > > +++ b/fs/namei.c > > @@ -411,10 +412,90 @@ static int sb_permission(struct super_block *sb, struct inode *inode, int mask) > <snip> > > +#if defined(CONFIG_SYSCTL) && !defined(CONFIG_OMAYEXEC_STATIC) > > +int proc_omayexec(struct ctl_table *table, int write, void __user *buffer, > > + size_t *lenp, loff_t *ppos) > > +{ > > + int error; > > + > > + if (write) { > > + struct ctl_table table_copy; > > + int tmp_mayexec_enforce; > > + > > + if (!capable(CAP_MAC_ADMIN)) > > + return -EPERM; > > Not fond of using CAP_MAC_ADMIN here (or elsewhere outside of security > modules). The ability to set this sysctl is not equivalent to being > able to load a MAC policy, set arbitrary MAC labels on > processes/files, etc. That's fair. In that case, perhaps this could just use the existing _sysadmin helper? (Though I should note that these perm checks actually need to be in the open, not the read/write ... I thought there was a series to fix that, but I can't find it now. Regardless, that's orthogonal to this series.) > > + * omayexec_inode_permission - Check O_MAYEXEC before accessing an inode > > + * > > + * @inode: Inode to check permission on > > + * @mask: Right to check for (%MAY_OPENEXEC, %MAY_EXECMOUNT, %MAY_EXEC) > > + * > > + * Returns 0 if access is permitted, -EACCES otherwise. > > + */ > > +static inline int omayexec_inode_permission(struct inode *inode, int mask) > > +{ > > + if (!(mask & MAY_OPENEXEC)) > > + return 0; > > + > > + if ((sysctl_omayexec_enforce & OMAYEXEC_ENFORCE_MOUNT) && > > + !(mask & MAY_EXECMOUNT)) > > + return -EACCES; > > + > > + if (sysctl_omayexec_enforce & OMAYEXEC_ENFORCE_FILE) > > + return generic_permission(inode, MAY_EXEC); > > + > > + return 0; > > +} > > I'm wondering if this is being done at the wrong level. I would think > that OMAYEXEC_ENFORCE_FILE would mean to check file execute permission > with respect to all mechanisms/policies, including DAC, > filesystem-specific checking (inode->i_op->permission), security > modules, etc. That requires more than just calling > generic_permission() with MAY_EXEC, which only covers the default > DAC/ACL logic; you'd need to take the handling up a level to > inode_permission() and re-map MAY_OPENEXEC to MAY_EXEC for > do_inode_permission() and security_inode_permission() at least. Oh, yeah, that's a good point. Does this need to be a two-pass check, or can MAY_OPENEXEC get expanded to MAY_EXEC here? Actually, why is this so deep at all? Shouldn't this be in may_open()? Like, couldn't just the entire thing just be: diff --git a/fs/namei.c b/fs/namei.c index a320371899cf..0ab18e19f5da 100644 --- a/fs/namei.c +++ b/fs/namei.c @@ -2849,6 +2849,13 @@ static int may_open(const struct path *path, int acc_mode, int flag) break; } + if (unlikely(mask & MAY_OPENEXEC)) { + if (sysctl_omayexec_enforce & OMAYEXEC_ENFORCE_MOUNT && + path_noexec(path)) + return -EACCES; + if (sysctl_omayexec_enforce & OMAYEXEC_ENFORCE_FILE) + acc_mode |= MAY_EXEC; + } error = inode_permission(inode, MAY_OPEN | acc_mode); if (error) return error; > Alternatively, we can modify each individual filesystem (that > implements its own i_op->permission) and security module to start > handling MAY_OPENEXEC and have them choose to remap it to a file > execute check (or not) independent of the sysctl. Not sure of your Eek, no, this should be centralized in the VFS, not per-filesystem, but I do see that it might be possible for a filesystem to actually do the MAY_OPENEXEC test internally, so the two-pass check wouldn't be needed. But... I think that can't happen until _everything_ can do the single pass check, so we always have to make the second call too. > intent. As it stands, selinux_inode_permission() will ignore the new > MAY_OPENEXEC flag until someone updates it. Likewise for Smack. > AppArmor/TOMOYO would probably need to check and handle FMODE_EXEC in > their file_open hooks since they don't implement inode_permission(). Is there any need to teach anything about MAY_OPENEXEC? It'll show up for the LSMs as (MAY_OPEN | MAY_EXEC). -- Kees Cook