On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 8:19 PM Stephen Smalley <sds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 12/18/18 10:50 AM, Ondrej Mosnacek wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 5:25 PM Stephen Smalley <sds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> On 12/13/18 9:17 AM, Ondrej Mosnacek wrote:
> >>> Ignore all selinux_inode_notifysecctx() calls on mounts with the
> >>> SECURITY_FS_USE_MNTPOINT behavior.
> >>>
> >>> This fixes behavior of kernfs-based filesystems when mounted with the
> >>> 'context=' option. Before this patch, if a node's context had been
> >>> explicitly set to a non-default value and later the filesystem has been
> >>> remounted with the 'context=' option, then this node would show up as
> >>> having a different context.
> >>>
> >>> Steps to reproduce:
> >>> # mount -t cgroup2 cgroup2 /sys/fs/cgroup/unified
> >>> # chcon unconfined_u:object_r:user_home_t:s0 /sys/fs/cgroup/unified/cgroup.stat
> >>> # ls -lZ /sys/fs/cgroup/unified
> >>> total 0
> >>> -r--r--r--. 1 root root system_u:object_r:cgroup_t:s0 0 Dec 13 10:41 cgroup.controllers
> >>> -rw-r--r--. 1 root root system_u:object_r:cgroup_t:s0 0 Dec 13 10:41 cgroup.max.depth
> >>> -rw-r--r--. 1 root root system_u:object_r:cgroup_t:s0 0 Dec 13 10:41 cgroup.max.descendants
> >>> -rw-r--r--. 1 root root system_u:object_r:cgroup_t:s0 0 Dec 13 10:41 cgroup.procs
> >>> -r--r--r--. 1 root root unconfined_u:object_r:user_home_t:s0 0 Dec 13 10:41 cgroup.stat
> >>> -rw-r--r--. 1 root root system_u:object_r:cgroup_t:s0 0 Dec 13 10:41 cgroup.subtree_control
> >>> -rw-r--r--. 1 root root system_u:object_r:cgroup_t:s0 0 Dec 13 10:41 cgroup.threads
> >>> # umount /sys/fs/cgroup/unified
> >>> # mount -o context=system_u:object_r:tmpfs_t:s0 -t cgroup2 cgroup2 /sys/fs/cgroup/unified
> >>>
> >>> Result before:
> >>> # ls -lZ /sys/fs/cgroup/unified
> >>> total 0
> >>> -r--r--r--. 1 root root system_u:object_r:tmpfs_t:s0 0 Dec 13 10:41 cgroup.controllers
> >>> -rw-r--r--. 1 root root system_u:object_r:tmpfs_t:s0 0 Dec 13 10:41 cgroup.max.depth
> >>> -rw-r--r--. 1 root root system_u:object_r:tmpfs_t:s0 0 Dec 13 10:41 cgroup.max.descendants
> >>> -rw-r--r--. 1 root root system_u:object_r:tmpfs_t:s0 0 Dec 13 10:41 cgroup.procs
> >>> -r--r--r--. 1 root root unconfined_u:object_r:user_home_t:s0 0 Dec 13 10:41 cgroup.stat
> >>> -rw-r--r--. 1 root root system_u:object_r:tmpfs_t:s0 0 Dec 13 10:41 cgroup.subtree_control
> >>> -rw-r--r--. 1 root root system_u:object_r:tmpfs_t:s0 0 Dec 13 10:41 cgroup.threads
> >>>
> >>> Result after:
> >>> # ls -lZ /sys/fs/cgroup/unified
> >>> total 0
> >>> -r--r--r--. 1 root root system_u:object_r:tmpfs_t:s0 0 Dec 13 10:41 cgroup.controllers
> >>> -rw-r--r--. 1 root root system_u:object_r:tmpfs_t:s0 0 Dec 13 10:41 cgroup.max.depth
> >>> -rw-r--r--. 1 root root system_u:object_r:tmpfs_t:s0 0 Dec 13 10:41 cgroup.max.descendants
> >>> -rw-r--r--. 1 root root system_u:object_r:tmpfs_t:s0 0 Dec 13 10:41 cgroup.procs
> >>> -r--r--r--. 1 root root system_u:object_r:tmpfs_t:s0 0 Dec 13 10:41 cgroup.stat
> >>> -rw-r--r--. 1 root root system_u:object_r:tmpfs_t:s0 0 Dec 13 10:41 cgroup.subtree_control
> >>> -rw-r--r--. 1 root root system_u:object_r:tmpfs_t:s0 0 Dec 13 10:41 cgroup.threads
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>> security/selinux/hooks.c | 7 +++++++
> >>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/security/selinux/hooks.c b/security/selinux/hooks.c
> >>> index d6d29ec54eab..0ca5ed30afe1 100644
> >>> --- a/security/selinux/hooks.c
> >>> +++ b/security/selinux/hooks.c
> >>> @@ -6620,6 +6620,13 @@ static void selinux_inode_invalidate_secctx(struct inode *inode)
> >>> */
> >>> static int selinux_inode_notifysecctx(struct inode *inode, void *ctx, u32 ctxlen)
> >>> {
> >>> + struct superblock_security_struct *sbsec = inode->i_sb->s_security;
> >>> +
> >>> + /* Do not change context in SECURITY_FS_USE_MNTPOINT case */
> >>> + if ((sbsec->flags & SE_SBINITIALIZED) &&
> >>> + (sbsec->behavior == SECURITY_FS_USE_MNTPOINT))
> >>> + return 0;
> >>> +
> >>> return selinux_inode_setsecurity(inode, XATTR_SELINUX_SUFFIX, ctx, ctxlen, 0);
> >>> }
> >>
> >> Wondering if we ought to take this into selinux_inode_setsecurity() and
> >> return -EOPNOTSUPP in that case. We already return -EOPNOTSUPP from
> >> selinux_inode_setxattr() if (!(sbsec->flags & SBLABEL_MNT)) and that
> >> should precede other calls to selinux_inode_setsecurity() IIRC.
> >
> > Maybe, but see below. In selinux_inode_setsecurity() we should indeed
> > check for SBLABEL_MNT, but only if it is called directly as a hook
> > (but I'm not sure if it is worth it in this case, since as you say, a
> > prior selinux_inode_setxattr() failure should always prevent this hook
> > from being called). selinux_inode_notifysecctx() has a bit different
> > semantics, IMHO.
> >
> >> Should we just be checking SBLABEL_MNT here instead?
> >
> > I don't think so. IIUC, the purpose of selinux_inode_notifysecctx() is
> > to adjust the sid that has been assigned by selinux_d_instantiate() by
> > the label that is 'stored' for the particular node internally by the
> > filesystem. I would say the fact whether we want to use the stored
> > label depends on the sbsec->behavior value (BTW, shouldn't we also
> > return 0 in case of SECURITY_FS_USE_TASK? or even
> > SECURITY_FS_USE_TRANS?). I understand the SBLABEL_MNT flag more as an
> > indication of whether we want the user to allow setting the label
> > explicitly (and probably also implicitly via tsec->create_sid).
>
> selinux_inode_notifysecctx() provides the filesystem with a way to push
> a label for an inode to the security module as opposed to having the
> security module pull it via __vfs_getxattr. The latter doesn't work
> well for NFSv4.2 security labeling nor for sysfs, albeit for different
> reasons.
>
> SBLABEL_MNT is not so much whether we want to allow the user to do it
> but rather whether the filesystem and policy make it safe to do so. It
> is set mostly based on the ->behavior with exceptions for the
> whitelisted filesystem types. The same flag is checked in
> selinux_inode_init_security(), where we are returning a label for a
> newly created file.
>
> Not sure we want to create two different ways of determining whether the
> filesystem supports labeling.
>
All right, I think we can say that any filesystem that does not
support labeling should never call security_inode_notifysecctx(). So
in this case "!(sbsec->flags & SBLABEL_MNT)" should be equivalent to
"sbsec->behavior == SECURITY_FS_USE_MNTPOINT". Considering that, I
don't have any strong arguments against checking SBLABEL_MNT instead
of behavior, so I'll change it to that in v2.
> >
> >> And do we need to separately check SE_SBINITIALIZED?
> >
> > I'm not sure, but other places in the code check that flag before
> > checking sbsec->behavior, so it seemed to me as the right thing to do.
> >
> > --
> > Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace at redhat dot com>
> > Associate Software Engineer, Security Technologies
> > Red Hat, Inc.
> >
--
Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace at redhat dot com>
Associate Software Engineer, Security Technologies
Red Hat, Inc.
