On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 03:59:29PM -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote: > On Thu, 2017-07-13 at 21:43 +0200, Dominick Grift wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 09:28:43PM +0200, Dominick Grift wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 03:29:56PM -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2017-07-13 at 20:16 +0200, Dominick Grift wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 02:13:40PM -0400, Stephen Smalley > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 2017-07-13 at 18:55 +0200, Dominick Grift wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 11:59:55AM -0400, Stephen Smalley > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2017-07-13 at 11:48 -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2017-07-13 at 09:25 -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 8:44 AM, Stephen Smalley <sds > > > > > > > > > > @tycho > > > > > > > > > > .nsa > > > > > > > > > > .gov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2017-07-12 at 20:27 -0400, Chris PeBenito > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 07/12/2017 05:38 PM, Paul Moore wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Stephen > > > > > > > > > > > > > Smalley <sds > > > > > > > > > > > > > @tyc > > > > > > > > > > > > > ho.n > > > > > > > > > > > > > sa > > > > > > > > > > > > > .gov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 2017-07-11 at 17:00 -0400, Paul Moore > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:25 PM, Stephen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Smalley > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <sds > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @tyc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ho > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .nsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .gov> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > While I think splitting the NNP/nosuid > > > > > > > > > > > > > transition > > > > > > > > > > > > > restrictions > > > > > > > > > > > > > might > > > > > > > > > > > > > be a good idea under the new policy capability, > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm > > > > > > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure > > > > > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > worth the cost of a "process2" object class. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With that in mind, let's do two things with > > > > > > > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > > > > > patch: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Mention the nosuid restrictions in the patch > > > > > > > > > > > > > description. It > > > > > > > > > > > > > doesn't need much text, but something would be > > > > > > > > > > > > > good > > > > > > > > > > > > > so we > > > > > > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > > > > documentation in the git log. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Let's pick a new permission name that is not > > > > > > > > > > > > > specific > > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > NNP > > > > > > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > > > > nosuid. IMHO, nnpnosuid_transition is ... less > > > > > > > > > > > > > than > > > > > > > > > > > > > good. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, I'm not sure I'm much better at > > > > > > > > > > > > > picking > > > > > > > > > > > > > names; > > > > > > > > > > > > > how > > > > > > > > > > > > > about > > > > > > > > > > > > > "protected_transition"? "restricted_transition > > > > > > > > > > > > > "? > > > > > > > > > > > > > "enable_transition"? "override_transition"? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I vote for nnp_transition anyway. "No New > > > > > > > > > > > > Privileges" > > > > > > > > > > > > encompasses > > > > > > > > > > > > nosuid in my mind. If the two perms had been > > > > > > > > > > > > separated > > > > > > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > > > been inclined to allow both every time one of > > > > > > > > > > > > them was > > > > > > > > > > > > needed, > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > make > > > > > > > > > > > > sure no one was surprised by the behavior > > > > > > > > > > > > difference. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree; I'll keep it as nnp_transition and just > > > > > > > > > > > document > > > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > patch description. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry to be a stubborn about this, but nnp_transition > > > > > > > > > > makes > > > > > > > > > > little > > > > > > > > > > sense for the nosuid restriction. Like it or not, > > > > > > > > > > NNP has > > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > concrete > > > > > > > > > > meaning which is distinct from nosuid mounts. We > > > > > > > > > > don't > > > > > > > > > > have to > > > > > > > > > > pick > > > > > > > > > > any of the permission names I tossed out, none of > > > > > > > > > > those > > > > > > > > > > were > > > > > > > > > > very > > > > > > > > > > good, but I would like to see something that takes > > > > > > > > > > both NNP > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > nosuid > > > > > > > > > > into account, or preferably something that doesn't > > > > > > > > > > use > > > > > > > > > > either > > > > > > > > > > name > > > > > > > > > > explicitly but still conveys the meaning. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > NNP is essentially a superset of nosuid; it applies to > > > > > > > > > all > > > > > > > > > execve() > > > > > > > > > calls by the process and its descendants rather than > > > > > > > > > only to > > > > > > > > > execve() > > > > > > > > > calls on specially marked filesystems. So I viewed it > > > > > > > > > as the > > > > > > > > > more > > > > > > > > > general term. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If that's not viable, I can't think of anything clearer > > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > better > > > > > > > > > than > > > > > > > > > nnp_nosuid_transition. That clearly links it to what > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > means > > > > > > > > > (allow > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > SELinux domain transition under NNP or nosuid). It is > > > > > > > > > somewhat > > > > > > > > > ugly > > > > > > > > > and verbose but it is clear in what it means, which I > > > > > > > > > think > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > more > > > > > > > > > important. All of your suggestions IMHO were less clear > > > > > > > > > since > > > > > > > > > they > > > > > > > > > had > > > > > > > > > no clear linkage to either NNP or nosuid, and I > > > > > > > > > couldn't tell > > > > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > > reading the permission name what it meant. The SELinux > > > > > > > > > domain > > > > > > > > > transition isn't protected, it isn't restricted, it > > > > > > > > > isn't > > > > > > > > > clear > > > > > > > > > what > > > > > > > > > enable_transition means versus the regular transition > > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > dyntransition > > > > > > > > > permissions, and we aren't overriding a transition but > > > > > > > > > rather > > > > > > > > > allowing > > > > > > > > > one under NNP/nosuid. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only other alternative I see is to introduce a > > > > > > > > > process2 > > > > > > > > > class > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > use separate nnp_transition and nosuid_transition > > > > > > > > > permissions > > > > > > > > > (but in > > > > > > > > > practice I expect them to be both allowed or denied > > > > > > > > > together). Note > > > > > > > > > that this will require two avtab and AVC entries for > > > > > > > > > every > > > > > > > > > domain > > > > > > > > > pair > > > > > > > > > (if we allow whichever one ends up going in the > > > > > > > > > process2 > > > > > > > > > class), > > > > > > > > > so > > > > > > > > > that has an impact on policy and AVC size. Don't > > > > > > > > > really see > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > worthwhile. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Other approach would be to make the nosuid transition > > > > > > > > > checks > > > > > > > > > file- > > > > > > > > > based > > > > > > > > > instead so that it would go in the file class (while > > > > > > > > > the nnp > > > > > > > > > one > > > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > > remain in the process class), but I don't think that's > > > > > > > > > really > > > > > > > > > what we > > > > > > > > > want either. Difference between "Can domain D1 > > > > > > > > > transition > > > > > > > > > under > > > > > > > > > nosuid > > > > > > > > > to D2?" and "Can domain D1 transition under nosuid > > > > > > > > > when > > > > > > > > > executing > > > > > > > > > file > > > > > > > > > with type T1?". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just to be clear, we would also be separately checking > > > > > > > > regular > > > > > > > > transition permission between the old and new contexts on > > > > > > > > these > > > > > > > > transitions, so you would need both: > > > > > > > > allow D1 D2:process transition; > > > > > > > > allow D1 T1:file nosuid_transition; > > > > > > > > if we took the latter approach. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So we wouldn't lose entirely on a domain-to-domain check, > > > > > > > > but > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > no longer be domain-to-domain for the nosuid part. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Whereas with original approach, we end up requiring: > > > > > > > > allow D1 D2:process transition; > > > > > > > > allow D1 D2:process nnp_nosuid_transition; # or whatever > > > > > > > > permission > > > > > > > > name is used > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't know if i understand all the ins-and-outs of the > > > > > > > matter > > > > > > > but i > > > > > > > think i do like the idea of differentiating between > > > > > > > nosuid_transition > > > > > > > and nnp_transition > > > > > > > It provides more flexibility because i might not want to > > > > > > > allow > > > > > > > one or > > > > > > > the other automatically. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not think it its a good idea to allow a process to > > > > > > > transiton > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > nosuid mounted filesystems just because i am forced to > > > > > > > allow it > > > > > > > nnp. > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you provide a real use case where you would need to > > > > > > distinguish > > > > > > them? > > > > > > > > > > Nope I cannot, but its easy to merge the two permissions in > > > > > policy, > > > > > and thereby preserving flexibility. It will be hard to deal > > > > > with a > > > > > case that might arise that was not foreseen if we cover both > > > > > scenarios with a single permission. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Currently we handle them the same way (i.e. we don't allow > > > > > > transitions > > > > > > unless bounded for both). The current patch preserves that > > > > > > consistency, and just provides a way to allow transitions > > > > > > without > > > > > > bounds for both. Of course, you still have to be allowed the > > > > > > usual > > > > > > permissions in order to perform the transition at all (Can > > > > > > the > > > > > > caller > > > > > > execute the file? Can the callee be entered (entrypoint) by > > > > > > the > > > > > > file? > > > > > > Can the caller transition to the callee?) in addition to the > > > > > > new > > > > > > permission check (Can the caller transition under NNP/nosuid > > > > > > to the > > > > > > callee?). > > > > > > > > > > > > We can't distinguish them on a domain-to-domain basis without > > > > > > introducing a new process2 class, and so far no one has been > > > > > > excited > > > > > > about that. > > > > > > > > > > Why is that? Eventually that is going to happen anyway. Besides > > > > > we > > > > > also have a capability2 and its not like that's a big deal is > > > > > it? > > > > > > > > Adding it is fine if we have a genuine need for it, but it > > > > doesn't come > > > > for free. It is potentially an extra avtab entry (policy rule) > > > > for > > > > every allowed domain transition in the policy. There are far > > > > fewer > > > > capability2 rules in comparison, since those are always domain- > > > > self and > > > > to date the need for those capabilities has also been relatively > > > > sparse. > > > > > > Okay i rest my case, just making sure that this is thought over > > > carefully > > > > Aw heck on more argument: > > > > How about adding another policycap for that? > > I doubt we want to require policy writers and analysts to have to check > a policy capability to determine whether nosuid transitions depend on > their own unique permission or the one shared with nnp transitions. > Complexity for no real gain. Yes well "no real gain" I think basically were just saying: nosuid doesnt apply to selinux anymore If i have an executable file type for a daemon that uses NNP and two executables one on a nosuid mounted slice and another one on a non-nosuid mounted partition, then basically from an selinux perspective the nosuid is meaningless. You can argue that one can still use transition rules, but that doesnt fly in this case I think > > > Also if were talking about excessive avtab entries. cap(2)?_userns > > seems pretty excessive to me (you pretty much end duplicating cap and > > cap2 equivalents for any process that needs to deal with userns) > > They seem to be fairly sparsely used on Fedora so far compared to > capability/capability2: > > $ sesearch -A -c cap_userns | wc -l > 102 > $ sesearch -A -c cap2_userns | wc -l > 2 > $ sesearch -A -c capability | wc -l > 1156 > $ sesearch -A -c capability2 | wc -l > 148 > > Also, my hope would be that with cap_userns/cap2_userns, they can > remove a number of capability/capabilty2 rules that should no longer be > required for domains that only need capabilities within a non-init > userns. > -- Key fingerprint = 5F4D 3CDB D3F8 3652 FBD8 02D5 3B6C 5F1D 2C7B 6B02 https://sks-keyservers.net/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x3B6C5F1D2C7B6B02 Dominick Grift
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
