On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 01:23:00PM +0100, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
>
>
> On 12/8/23 12:05, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 12:01:15PM +0100, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
> > > Hello Paul,
> > >
> > > On 11/8/23 03:31, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > > On Oct 20, 2023 "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > This patch introduces LSM hooks for devices creation,
> > > > > destruction and opening operations, checking the
> > > > > application is allowed to perform these operations for
> > > > > the Virtio device type.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > drivers/vdpa/vdpa_user/vduse_dev.c | 12 +++++++
> > > > > include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h | 4 +++
> > > > > include/linux/security.h | 15 ++++++++
> > > > > security/security.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > security/selinux/hooks.c | 55 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > security/selinux/include/classmap.h | 2 ++
> > > > > 6 files changed, 130 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > My apologies for the late reply, I've been trying to work my way through
> > > > the review backlog but it has been taking longer than expected; comments
> > > > below ...
> > >
> > > No worries, I have also been busy these days.
> > >
> > > > > diff --git a/security/selinux/hooks.c b/security/selinux/hooks.c
> > > > > index 2aa0e219d721..65d9262a37f7 100644
> > > > > --- a/security/selinux/hooks.c
> > > > > +++ b/security/selinux/hooks.c
> > > > > @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@
> > > > > * Copyright (C) 2016 Mellanox Technologies
> > > > > */
> > > > > +#include "av_permissions.h"
> > > > > #include <linux/init.h>
> > > > > #include <linux/kd.h>
> > > > > #include <linux/kernel.h>
> > > > > @@ -92,6 +93,7 @@
> > > > > #include <linux/fsnotify.h>
> > > > > #include <linux/fanotify.h>
> > > > > #include <linux/io_uring.h>
> > > > > +#include <uapi/linux/virtio_ids.h>
> > > > > #include "avc.h"
> > > > > #include "objsec.h"
> > > > > @@ -6950,6 +6952,56 @@ static int selinux_uring_cmd(struct io_uring_cmd *ioucmd)
> > > > > }
> > > > > #endif /* CONFIG_IO_URING */
> > > > > +static int vduse_check_device_type(u32 sid, u32 device_id)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + u32 requested;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (device_id == VIRTIO_ID_NET)
> > > > > + requested = VDUSE__NET;
> > > > > + else if (device_id == VIRTIO_ID_BLOCK)
> > > > > + requested = VDUSE__BLOCK;
> > > > > + else
> > > > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + return avc_has_perm(sid, sid, SECCLASS_VDUSE, requested, NULL);
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > > > +static int selinux_vduse_dev_create(u32 device_id)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + u32 sid = current_sid();
> > > > > + int ret;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + ret = avc_has_perm(sid, sid, SECCLASS_VDUSE, VDUSE__DEVCREATE, NULL);
> > > > > + if (ret)
> > > > > + return ret;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + return vduse_check_device_type(sid, device_id);
> > > > > +}
> > > >
> > > > I see there has been some discussion about the need for a dedicated
> > > > create hook as opposed to using the existing ioctl controls. I think
> > > > one important point that has been missing from the discussion is the
> > > > idea of labeling the newly created device. Unfortunately prior to a
> > > > few minutes ago I hadn't ever looked at VDUSE so please correct me if
> > > > I get some things wrong :)
> > > >
> > > > From what I can see userspace creates a new VDUSE device with
> > > > ioctl(VDUSE_CREATE_DEV), which trigger the creation of a new
> > > > /dev/vduse/XXX device which will be labeled according to the udev
> > > > and SELinux configuration, likely with a generic udev label. My
> > > > question is if we want to be able to uniquely label each VDUSE
> > > > device based on the process that initiates the device creation
> > > > with the call to ioctl()? If that is the case, we would need a
> > > > create hook not only to control the creation of the device, but to
> > > > record the triggering process' label in the new device; this label
> > > > would then be used in subsequent VDUSE open and destroy operations.
> > > > The normal device file I/O operations would still be subject to the
> > > > standard SELinux file I/O permissions using the device file label
> > > > assigned by systemd/udev when the device was created.
> > >
> > > I don't think we need a unique label for VDUSE devices, but maybe
> > > Michael thinks otherwise?
> >
> > I don't know.
> > All this is consumed by libvirt, you need to ask these guys.
>
> I think it is not consumed by libvirt, at least not in the usecases I
> have in mind. For networking devices, it will be consumed by OVS.
>
> Maxime
OK, ovs then :)
--
MST
