Hi Amir,
On Sun, 2021-04-04 at 13:27 +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> [forking question about security modules]
>
> >
> > Nice thing about vfs_{set,remove}xattr() is that they already have
> > several levels of __vfs_ helpers and nfsd already calls those, so
> > we can hoist fsnotify_xattr() hooks hooks up from the __vfs_xxx
> > helpers to the common vfs_xxx helpers and add fsnotify hooks to
> > the very few callers of __vfs_ helpers.
> >
> > nfsd is consistently calling __vfs_{set,remove}xattr_locked() which
> > do generate events, but ecryptfs mixes __vfs_setxattr_locked() with
> > __vfs_removexattr(), which does not generate event and does not
> > check permissions - it looks like an oversight.
> >
> > The thing is, right now __vfs_setxattr_noperm() generates events,
> > but looking at all the security/* callers, it feels to me like those are
> > very internal operations and that "noperm" should also imply "nonotify".
> >
> > To prove my point, all those callers call __vfs_removexattr() which
> > does NOT generate an event.
> >
> > Also, I *think* the EVM setxattr is something that usually follows
> > another file data/metadata change, so some event would have been
> > generated by the original change anyway.
> >
> > Mimi,
> >
> > Do you have an opinion on that?
Right, EVM is re-calculating the EVM HMAC, which is based on other LSM
xattrs and includes some misc file metadata (e.g. ino, generation, uid,
gid, mode).
> >
> > The question is if you think it is important for an inotify/fanotify watcher
> > that subscribed to IN_ATTRIB/FAN_ATTRIB events on a file to get an
> > event when the IMA security blob changes.
Probably not. Programs could open files R/W, but never modify the
file. Perhaps to detect mutable file changes, but I'm not aware of
anyone doing so.
>
> Guys,
>
> I was doing some re-factoring of the __vfs_setxattr helpers
> and noticed some strange things.
>
> The wider context is fsnotify_xattr() hooks inside internal
> setxattr,removexattr calls. I would like to move those hooks
> to the common vfs_{set,remove}xattr() helpers.
>
> SMACK & SELINUX:
> For the callers of __vfs_setxattr_noperm(),
> smack_inode_setsecctx() and selinux_inode_setsecctx()
> It seems that the only user is nfsd4_set_nfs4_label(), so it
> makes sense for me to add the fsnotify_xattr() in nfsd context,
> same as I did with other fsnotify_ hooks.
>
> Are there any other expected callers of security_inode_setsecctx()
> except nfsd in the future? If so they would need to also add the
> fsnotify_xattr() hook, if at all the user visible FS_ATTRIB event is
> considered desirable.
>
> SMACK:
> Just to be sure, is the call to __vfs_setxattr() from smack_d_instantiate()
> guaranteed to be called for an inode whose S_NOSEC flag is already
> cleared? Because the flag is being cleared by __vfs_setxattr_noperm().
>
> EVM:
> I couldn't find what's stopping this recursion:
> evm_update_evmxattr() => __vfs_setxattr_noperm() =>
> security_inode_post_setxattr() => evm_inode_post_removexattr() =>
> evm_update_evmxattr()
EVM is triggered when file metadata changes, causing the EVM HMAC to be
re-calculated. Before updating security.evm, EVM first verifies, on the
evm_inode_setattr/setxattr/removexattr() hooks, that the existing
security.evm value is correct.
On the _post hooks, security.evm is updated or removed, if no LSM xattr
exists.
> It looks like the S_NOSEC should already be clear when
> evm_update_evmxattr() is called(?), so it seems more logical to me to
> call __vfs_setxattr() as there is no ->inode_setsecurity() hook for EVM.
> Am I missing something?
EVM is triggered when an LSM updates/removes its xattr. The LSM is
responsible for taking the inode lock. Thus it is calling
__vfs_setxattr_noperm.
>
> It seems to me that updating the EVM hmac should not generate
> a visible FS_ATTRIB event to listeners, because it is an internal
> implementation detail and because update EVM hmac happens
> following another change to the inode which anyway reports a
> visible event to listeners.
Ok
> Also, please note that evm_update_evmxattr() may also call
> __vfs_removexattr() which does not call the fsnotify_xattr() hook.
>
> IMA:
> Similarly, ima_fix_xattr() should be called on an inode without
> S_NOSEC flag and no other LSM should be interested in the
> IMA hash update, right? So wouldn't it be better to use
> __vfs_setxattr() in this case as well?
>
> ima_fix_xattr() can be called after file data update, which again
> will have other visible events, but it can also be called in "fix mode"
> I suppose also when reading files? Still, it seems to me like an
> internal implementation detail that should not generate a user
> visible event.
Originally, IMA took the inode lock really early, way before calling
setxattr. Taking the inode lock can probably be deferred to setxattr.
I have a vague recollection that SELinux also prevented IMA from
writing its own xattr label. I don't know if that is still true.
thanks,
Mimi
>
> If you agree with my proposed changes, please ACK the
> respective bits of your subsystem from the attached patch.
> Note that my patch does not contain the proposed change to
> use __vfs_setxattr() in IMA/EVM.
>
> Thanks,
> Amir.
