On Mon, 2023-03-27 at 17:02 -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 3:30 AM Roberto Sassu > <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, 2023-03-24 at 17:39 -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 9:26 AM Roberto Sassu > > > <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2023-03-24 at 11:18 +0100, Roberto Sassu wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 2023-03-23 at 20:09 -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 4:19 AM Roberto Sassu > > > > > > <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > From: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Currently, security_inode_init_security() supports only one LSM providing > > > > > > > an xattr and EVM calculating the HMAC on that xattr, plus other inode > > > > > > > metadata. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Allow all LSMs to provide one or multiple xattrs, by extending the security > > > > > > > blob reservation mechanism. Introduce the new lbs_xattr field of the > > > > > > > lsm_blob_sizes structure, so that each LSM can specify how many xattrs it > > > > > > > needs, and the LSM infrastructure knows how many xattr slots it should > > > > > > > allocate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dynamically allocate the xattrs array to be populated by LSMs with the > > > > > > > inode_init_security hook, and pass it to the latter instead of the > > > > > > > name/value/len triple. Update the documentation accordingly, and fix the > > > > > > > description of the xattr name, as it is not allocated anymore. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since the LSM infrastructure, at initialization time, updates the number of > > > > > > > the requested xattrs provided by each LSM with a corresponding offset in > > > > > > > the security blob (in this case the xattr array), it makes straightforward > > > > > > > for an LSM to access the right position in the xattr array. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is still the issue that an LSM might not fill the xattr, even if it > > > > > > > requests it (legitimate case, for example it might have been loaded but not > > > > > > > initialized with a policy). Since users of the xattr array (e.g. the > > > > > > > initxattrs() callbacks) detect the end of the xattr array by checking if > > > > > > > the xattr name is NULL, not filling an xattr would cause those users to > > > > > > > stop scanning xattrs prematurely. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Solve that issue by introducing security_check_compact_filled_xattrs(), > > > > > > > which does a basic check of the xattr array (if the xattr name is filled, > > > > > > > the xattr value should be too, and viceversa), and compacts the xattr array > > > > > > > by removing the holes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > An alternative solution would be to let users of the xattr array know the > > > > > > > number of elements of that array, so that they don't have to check the > > > > > > > termination. However, this seems more invasive, compared to a simple move > > > > > > > of few array elements. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > security_check_compact_filled_xattrs() also determines how many xattrs in > > > > > > > the xattr array have been filled. If there is none, skip > > > > > > > evm_inode_init_security() and initxattrs(). Skipping the former also avoids > > > > > > > EVM to crash the kernel, as it is expecting a filled xattr. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, adapt both SELinux and Smack to use the new definition of the > > > > > > > inode_init_security hook, and to correctly fill the designated slots in the > > > > > > > xattr array. For Smack, reserve space for the other defined xattrs although > > > > > > > they are not set yet in smack_inode_init_security(). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Reported-by: Nicolas Bouchinet <nicolas.bouchinet@xxxxxxxxxxx> (EVM crash) > > > > > > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/Y1FTSIo+1x+4X0LS@archlinux/ > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h | 3 +- > > > > > > > include/linux/lsm_hooks.h | 1 + > > > > > > > security/security.c | 119 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- > > > > > > > security/selinux/hooks.c | 19 ++++-- > > > > > > > security/smack/smack_lsm.c | 33 ++++++---- > > > > > > > 5 files changed, 137 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-) > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > @@ -1604,33 +1654,66 @@ int security_inode_init_security(struct inode *inode, struct inode *dir, > > > > > > > const struct qstr *qstr, > > > > > > > const initxattrs initxattrs, void *fs_data) > > > > > > > { > > > > > > > - struct xattr new_xattrs[MAX_LSM_EVM_XATTR + 1]; > > > > > > > - struct xattr *lsm_xattr, *evm_xattr, *xattr; > > > > > > > - int ret; > > > > > > > + struct security_hook_list *P; > > > > > > > + struct xattr *new_xattrs; > > > > > > > + struct xattr *xattr; > > > > > > > + int ret = -EOPNOTSUPP, num_filled_xattrs = 0; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if (unlikely(IS_PRIVATE(inode))) > > > > > > > return 0; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + if (!blob_sizes.lbs_xattr) > > > > > > > + return 0; > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > if (!initxattrs) > > > > > > > return call_int_hook(inode_init_security, -EOPNOTSUPP, inode, > > > > > > > - dir, qstr, NULL, NULL, NULL); > > > > > > > - memset(new_xattrs, 0, sizeof(new_xattrs)); > > > > > > > - lsm_xattr = new_xattrs; > > > > > > > - ret = call_int_hook(inode_init_security, -EOPNOTSUPP, inode, dir, qstr, > > > > > > > - &lsm_xattr->name, > > > > > > > - &lsm_xattr->value, > > > > > > > - &lsm_xattr->value_len); > > > > > > > - if (ret) > > > > > > > + dir, qstr, NULL); > > > > > > > + /* Allocate +1 for EVM and +1 as terminator. */ > > > > > > > + new_xattrs = kcalloc(blob_sizes.lbs_xattr + 2, sizeof(*new_xattrs), > > > > > > > + GFP_NOFS); > > > > > > > + if (!new_xattrs) > > > > > > > + return -ENOMEM; > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > + hlist_for_each_entry(P, &security_hook_heads.inode_init_security, > > > > > > > + list) { > > > > > > > + ret = P->hook.inode_init_security(inode, dir, qstr, new_xattrs); > > > > > > > + if (ret && ret != -EOPNOTSUPP) > > > > > > > + goto out; > > > > > > > + /* > > > > > > > + * As documented in lsm_hooks.h, -EOPNOTSUPP in this context > > > > > > > + * means that the LSM is not willing to provide an xattr, not > > > > > > > + * that it wants to signal an error. Thus, continue to invoke > > > > > > > + * the remaining LSMs. > > > > > > > + */ > > > > > > > + if (ret == -EOPNOTSUPP) > > > > > > > + continue; > > > > > > > + /* > > > > > > > + * As the number of xattrs reserved by LSMs is not directly > > > > > > > + * available, directly use the total number blob_sizes.lbs_xattr > > > > > > > + * to keep the code simple, while being not the most efficient > > > > > > > + * way. > > > > > > > + */ > > > > > > > > > > > > Is there a good reason why the LSM can't return the number of xattrs > > > > > > it is adding to the xattr array? It seems like it should be fairly > > > > > > trivial for the individual LSMs to determine and it could save a lot > > > > > > of work. However, given we're at v8 on this patchset I'm sure I'm > > > > > > missing something obvious, can you help me understand why the idea > > > > > > above is crazy stupid? ;) > > > > > > > > Much simple answer. Yes, LSMs could return the number of xattrs set, > > > > but security_check_compact_filled_xattrs() also needs to know from > > > > which offset (the lbs_xattr of each LSM) it should start compacting. > > > > > > > > Example: suppose that you have three LSMs with: > > > > > > > > LSM#1: lbs_xattr 1 > > > > LSM#2: lbs_xattr 2 (disabled) > > > > LSM#3: lbs_xattr 1 > > > > > > > > The current compaction interval is: already compacted xattrs - end of > > > > new_xattr array. > > > > > > > > When the security_inode_init_security() loop calls LSM#3, the > > > > compaction interval is: 1 - 2 (LSM#2 returns 0), which clearly isn't > > > > right. The correct compaction interval should be: 3 - 4. > > > > > > > > Going to the end of new_xattrs is an approximation, but it ensures > > > > that security_check_compact_filled_xattrs() reaches the xattr set by > > > > LSM#3. > > > > > > > > The alternative I was mentioning of passing num_filled_xattrs to LSMs > > > > goes again in the direction of doing on-the-fly compaction, while LSMs > > > > are more familiar with using the lbs_* fields. > > > > > > I guess I was thinking of the case where the LSM layer, i.e. > > > security_inode_init_security(), allocates an xattr array like it does > > > now based on the maximum number of xattrs possible using the > > > lsm_blob_sizes values and passes a pointer to the individual LSMs > > > which is incremented based on how many xattrs are created by the > > > individual LSMs. Here is some *very* rough pseudo code: > > > > > > int security_inode_init_security(...) > > > { > > > > > > /* allocate an xattr array */ > > > xattrs = kcalloc(blob_sizes, sizeof(*xattrs), GFP_BLAH); > > > > > > /* loop on the lsms */ > > > xa_cnt = 0; > > > while (lsm_hooks) { > > > rc = call_hook(lsm_hook, &xattrs[xa_cnt]); > > > if (rc > 0) > > > xa_cnt += rc; > > > } > > > > > > /* evm magic */ > > > evm_inode_init_security(...) > > > } > > > > > > Does that work? Am I missing something? > > > > Oh, unfortunately not. EVM needs to see all xattrs (when it is moved to > > the LSM infrastructure). > > Okay, that's fair, but we could still pass the full xattrs array and a > reference to the current count which could be both read and updated by > the individual LSMs, right? Yes, we could do. > The issue is that the separate compaction stage is not something we > want to have to do if we can avoid it. Maybe we're stuck with it, but > I'm not yet convinced that we can't make some minor changes to the > LSMs to avoid the compaction step. I liked more the idea that LSMs do what they are most familiar with, get an offset in a security blob or, in this case, a starting slot in the new_xattrs array, and write there. v3 had the lsm_find_xattr_slot() helper, to get the starting slot, but somehow I find it less intuitive. Ok, if you prefer to avoid the compaction stage, I will rewrite this patch. Thanks Roberto
