Re: [PATCH 10/29] selinux: implement set acl hook

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 11:18 AM Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> The current way of setting and getting posix acls through the generic
> xattr interface is error prone and type unsafe. The vfs needs to
> interpret and fixup posix acls before storing or reporting it to
> userspace. Various hacks exist to make this work. The code is hard to
> understand and difficult to maintain in it's current form. Instead of
> making this work by hacking posix acls through xattr handlers we are
> building a dedicated posix acl api around the get and set inode
> operations. This removes a lot of hackiness and makes the codepaths
> easier to maintain. A lot of background can be found in [1].
>
> So far posix acls were passed as a void blob to the security and
> integrity modules. Some of them like evm then proceed to interpret the
> void pointer and convert it into the kernel internal struct posix acl
> representation to perform their integrity checking magic. This is
> obviously pretty problematic as that requires knowledge that only the
> vfs is guaranteed to have and has lead to various bugs. Add a proper
> security hook for setting posix acls and pass down the posix acls in
> their appropriate vfs format instead of hacking it through a void
> pointer stored in the uapi format.
>
> I spent considerate time in the security module infrastructure and
> audited all codepaths. SELinux has no restrictions based on the posix
> acl values passed through it. The capability hook doesn't need to be
> called either because it only has restrictions on security.* xattrs. So
> this all becomes a very simple hook for SELinux.
>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220801145520.1532837-1-brauner@xxxxxxxxxx [1]
> Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner (Microsoft) <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  security/selinux/hooks.c | 8 ++++++++
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/security/selinux/hooks.c b/security/selinux/hooks.c
> index 79573504783b..bbc0ce3bde35 100644
> --- a/security/selinux/hooks.c
> +++ b/security/selinux/hooks.c
> @@ -3239,6 +3239,13 @@ static int selinux_inode_setxattr(struct user_namespace *mnt_userns,
>                             &ad);
>  }
>
> +static int selinux_inode_set_acl(struct user_namespace *mnt_userns,
> +                                struct dentry *dentry, const char *acl_name,
> +                                struct posix_acl *kacl)
> +{
> +       return dentry_has_perm(current_cred(), dentry, FILE__SETATTR);
> +}
> +
>  static void selinux_inode_post_setxattr(struct dentry *dentry, const char *name,
>                                         const void *value, size_t size,
>                                         int flags)
> @@ -7063,6 +7070,7 @@ static struct security_hook_list selinux_hooks[] __lsm_ro_after_init = {
>         LSM_HOOK_INIT(inode_getxattr, selinux_inode_getxattr),
>         LSM_HOOK_INIT(inode_listxattr, selinux_inode_listxattr),
>         LSM_HOOK_INIT(inode_removexattr, selinux_inode_removexattr),
> +       LSM_HOOK_INIT(inode_set_acl, selinux_inode_set_acl),

See my other reply about needing to see the full patchset in order to
properly review the changes, but one thing immediately jumped out at
me when looking at this: why is the LSM hook
"security_inode_set_acl()" when we are passing a dentry instead of an
inode?  We don't have a lot of them, but there are
`security_dentry_*()` LSM hooks in the existing kernel code.

-- 
paul-moore.com



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux Kernel Hardening]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux