On 2022/8/17 15:17, Guozihua (Scott) wrote:
On 2022/8/16 6:23, Paul Moore wrote:
On Sun, Aug 14, 2022 at 2:30 PM Mimi Zohar <zohar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Scott, Paul,
On Tue, 2022-08-09 at 12:24 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
On Sun, Aug 7, 2022 at 11:19 PM Guozihua (Scott)
<guozihua@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2022/8/8 11:02, Guozihua (Scott) wrote:
Hi Community,
Recently we discovered a race condition while updating SELinux policy
with IMA lsm rule enabled. Which would lead to extra files being
measured.
While SELinux policy is updated, the IDs for object types and such
would
be changed, and ima_lsm_update_rules would be called.
There are no lock applied in ima_lsm_update_rules. If user accesses a
file during this time, ima_match_rules will be matching rules
based on
old SELinux au_seqno resulting in selinux_audit_rule_match returning
-ESTALE.
However, in ima_match_rules, this error number is not handled,
causing
IMA to think the LSM rule is also a match, leading to measuring extra
files.
...
Is this the intended behavior? Or is it a good idea to add a lock for
LSM rules during update?
I'm not the IMA expert here, but a lot of effort has been into the
SELinux code to enable lockless/RCU SELinux policy access and I
*really* don't want to have to backtrack on that.
IMA initially updated it's reference to the SELinux label ids lazily.
More recently IMA refreshes the LSM label ids based on
register_blocking_lsm_notifier(). As a result of commit 9ad6e9cb39c6
("selinux: fix race between old and new sidtab"), -ESTALE is now being
returned.
To be clear, are you seeing this only started happening after commit
9ad6e9cb39c6? If that is the case, I would suggest a retry loop
around ima_filter_rule_match() when -ESTALE is returned. I believe
that should resolve the problem, if not please let us know.
Hi Mimi and Paul
It seems that selinux_audit_rule_match has been returning -ESTALE for a
very long time. It dates back to 376bd9cb357ec.
IMA used to have a retry mechanism, but it was removed by b16942455193
("ima: use the lsm policy update notifier"). Maybe we should consider
bring it back or just add a lock in ima_lsm_update_rules().
FYI, once ima received the notification, it starts updating all it's lsm
rules one-by-one. During this time, calling ima_match_rules on any rule
that is not yet updated would return -ESTALE.
I mean a retry might still be needed in ima_match_rules(), but not the
ima_lsm_update_rules().
--
Best
GUO Zihua
