From: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
To: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@polito.it>
Cc: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
dhowells@redhat.com, jmorris@namei.org, zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
safford@watson.ibm.com, tyhicks@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
kirkland@canonical.com, ecryptfs-devel@lists.launchpad.net,
eparis@redhat.com, sds@tycho.nsa.gov, selinux@tycho.nsa.gov,
viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/7] File descriptor labeling
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 08:52:59 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4DB83BDB.8080301@schaufler-ca.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1303907657-18366-1-git-send-email-roberto.sassu@polito.it>
On 4/27/2011 5:34 AM, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> File descriptor labeling issue
>
> Actually SELinux and SMACK assign to file descriptors the same label of the
> opening process and use it in LSM hooks security_file_permission(),
> security_file_fcntl() and others to verify if the 'current' process has the
> rights to perform the requested operation.
>
> Using the credentials of the 'current' process may be not appropriate in
> case a file descriptor is opened by a kernel service (i.e. a filesystem)
> and made shared among user processes. For instance, in a system with
> SELinux and eCryptfs, if the process A opens an encrypted file, eCryptfs
> obtains a file descriptor to access the correspondent inode in the lower
> filesystem, labeled with the A's label.
>
> If the process B accesses the same encrypted file, it needs the 'use'
> permission on the A's label other than permissions for the lower inode.
> However, if B is the first accessing process, A needs the 'use' permission
> on the B's label.
>
> The solution proposed is to modify those kernel services that deal with
> file descriptors to provide their set of credentials to dentry_open(), so
> that obtained objects are labeled with a unique label. In this way, in the
> above example, if eCryptfs provides its credentials with the label C to
> dentry_open(), all user processes need the 'use' permission only on C.
>
>
>
> File descriptor labeling and IMA
>
> The above proposal suggests to use the file descriptor label as a new
> criteria in the IMA policy to determine if a file must be measured. It will
> be possible to measure all files opened by a kernel service by simply
> writing a rule where the file descriptor label given as a value matches the
> one provided by the same service together with other credentials to the
> function dentry_open().
>
> In the above example, if eCryptfs provides its credentials with the label C
> to dentry_open(), it is possible to measure all inodes opened in the lower
> filesystem by specifying a rule like:
>
> fowner_type=C
>
>
> The benefits of this new criteria will be greater with the integration of
> EVM and the IMA appraisal feature in the kernel. ECryptfs can be used in
> conjunction with these components to verify the integrity of the content
> and extended attributes of encrypted files.
>
> Roberto Sassu
>
>
> Roberto Sassu (7):
> fs: initialize file->f_cred with credentials provided
> selinux: label new file descriptors using file->f_cred
> smack: assign the label set in file->f_cred to new file descriptors
> smack: fix label check in smack_kernel_act_as()
> smack: import the security label in smack_secctx_to_secid()
> security: new LSM hook security_file_getsecid()
> ima: added new LSM conditions in the policy
>
> Documentation/ABI/testing/ima_policy | 7 ++++-
> fs/file_table.c | 5 +--
> fs/internal.h | 2 +-
> fs/namei.c | 2 +-
> fs/open.c | 2 +-
> include/linux/security.h | 12 +++++++++
> security/capability.c | 6 ++++
> security/integrity/ima/ima.h | 4 +-
> security/integrity/ima/ima_api.c | 4 +-
> security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c | 4 +-
> security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c | 45 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> security/security.c | 6 ++++
> security/selinux/hooks.c | 9 ++++++-
> security/smack/smack_lsm.c | 23 +++++++++++++++--
> 14 files changed, 108 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
I have not given this patch set a complete review, but at first
glance I do not like it. You seem to be making a lot of assumptions
about the interactions between services and LSMs that I don't
know are valid. It is possible that I have not dug in deeply
enough to understand where this is headed. I will have a more
complete review in a bit.
--
This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
To: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@polito.it>
Cc: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
dhowells@redhat.com, jmorris@namei.org, zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
safford@watson.ibm.com, tyhicks@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
kirkland@canonical.com, ecryptfs-devel@lists.launchpad.net,
eparis@redhat.com, sds@tycho.nsa.gov, selinux@tycho.nsa.gov,
viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/7] File descriptor labeling
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 08:52:59 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4DB83BDB.8080301@schaufler-ca.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1303907657-18366-1-git-send-email-roberto.sassu@polito.it>
On 4/27/2011 5:34 AM, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> File descriptor labeling issue
>
> Actually SELinux and SMACK assign to file descriptors the same label of the
> opening process and use it in LSM hooks security_file_permission(),
> security_file_fcntl() and others to verify if the 'current' process has the
> rights to perform the requested operation.
>
> Using the credentials of the 'current' process may be not appropriate in
> case a file descriptor is opened by a kernel service (i.e. a filesystem)
> and made shared among user processes. For instance, in a system with
> SELinux and eCryptfs, if the process A opens an encrypted file, eCryptfs
> obtains a file descriptor to access the correspondent inode in the lower
> filesystem, labeled with the A's label.
>
> If the process B accesses the same encrypted file, it needs the 'use'
> permission on the A's label other than permissions for the lower inode.
> However, if B is the first accessing process, A needs the 'use' permission
> on the B's label.
>
> The solution proposed is to modify those kernel services that deal with
> file descriptors to provide their set of credentials to dentry_open(), so
> that obtained objects are labeled with a unique label. In this way, in the
> above example, if eCryptfs provides its credentials with the label C to
> dentry_open(), all user processes need the 'use' permission only on C.
>
>
>
> File descriptor labeling and IMA
>
> The above proposal suggests to use the file descriptor label as a new
> criteria in the IMA policy to determine if a file must be measured. It will
> be possible to measure all files opened by a kernel service by simply
> writing a rule where the file descriptor label given as a value matches the
> one provided by the same service together with other credentials to the
> function dentry_open().
>
> In the above example, if eCryptfs provides its credentials with the label C
> to dentry_open(), it is possible to measure all inodes opened in the lower
> filesystem by specifying a rule like:
>
> fowner_type=C
>
>
> The benefits of this new criteria will be greater with the integration of
> EVM and the IMA appraisal feature in the kernel. ECryptfs can be used in
> conjunction with these components to verify the integrity of the content
> and extended attributes of encrypted files.
>
> Roberto Sassu
>
>
> Roberto Sassu (7):
> fs: initialize file->f_cred with credentials provided
> selinux: label new file descriptors using file->f_cred
> smack: assign the label set in file->f_cred to new file descriptors
> smack: fix label check in smack_kernel_act_as()
> smack: import the security label in smack_secctx_to_secid()
> security: new LSM hook security_file_getsecid()
> ima: added new LSM conditions in the policy
>
> Documentation/ABI/testing/ima_policy | 7 ++++-
> fs/file_table.c | 5 +--
> fs/internal.h | 2 +-
> fs/namei.c | 2 +-
> fs/open.c | 2 +-
> include/linux/security.h | 12 +++++++++
> security/capability.c | 6 ++++
> security/integrity/ima/ima.h | 4 +-
> security/integrity/ima/ima_api.c | 4 +-
> security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c | 4 +-
> security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c | 45 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> security/security.c | 6 ++++
> security/selinux/hooks.c | 9 ++++++-
> security/smack/smack_lsm.c | 23 +++++++++++++++--
> 14 files changed, 108 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
I have not given this patch set a complete review, but at first
glance I do not like it. You seem to be making a lot of assumptions
about the interactions between services and LSMs that I don't
know are valid. It is possible that I have not dug in deeply
enough to understand where this is headed. I will have a more
complete review in a bit.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-04-27 15:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 63+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-04-27 12:34 [RFC][PATCH 0/7] File descriptor labeling Roberto Sassu
2011-04-27 12:34 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/7] fs: initialize file->f_cred with credentials provided Roberto Sassu
2011-04-27 12:34 ` [RFC][PATCH 2/7] selinux: label new file descriptors using file->f_cred Roberto Sassu
2011-04-27 12:34 ` [RFC][PATCH 3/7] smack: assign the label set in file->f_cred to new file descriptors Roberto Sassu
2011-04-27 23:26 ` Casey Schaufler
2011-04-27 23:26 ` Casey Schaufler
2011-04-28 8:06 ` Roberto Sassu
2011-04-28 8:06 ` Roberto Sassu
2011-04-27 12:34 ` [RFC][PATCH 4/7] smack: fix label check in smack_kernel_act_as() Roberto Sassu
2011-04-27 23:22 ` Casey Schaufler
2011-04-27 23:22 ` Casey Schaufler
2011-04-28 9:22 ` Roberto Sassu
2011-04-28 9:22 ` Roberto Sassu
2011-04-27 12:34 ` [RFC][PATCH 5/7] smack: import the security label in smack_secctx_to_secid() Roberto Sassu
2011-04-27 23:47 ` Casey Schaufler
2011-04-27 23:47 ` Casey Schaufler
2011-04-27 12:34 ` [RFC][PATCH 6/7] security: new LSM hook security_file_getsecid() Roberto Sassu
2011-04-27 23:50 ` Casey Schaufler
2011-04-27 23:50 ` Casey Schaufler
2011-04-28 9:41 ` Roberto Sassu
2011-04-28 9:41 ` Roberto Sassu
2011-04-27 12:34 ` [RFC][PATCH 7/7] ima: added new LSM conditions in the policy Roberto Sassu
2011-04-28 13:32 ` Mimi Zohar
2011-04-28 13:32 ` Mimi Zohar
2011-04-28 13:52 ` Roberto Sassu
2011-04-28 13:52 ` Roberto Sassu
2011-04-27 15:52 ` Casey Schaufler [this message]
2011-04-27 15:52 ` [RFC][PATCH 0/7] File descriptor labeling Casey Schaufler
2011-04-27 20:19 ` Casey Schaufler
2011-04-27 20:19 ` Casey Schaufler
2011-04-27 23:27 ` Tyler Hicks
2011-04-27 23:27 ` Tyler Hicks
2011-04-27 23:57 ` Casey Schaufler
2011-04-27 23:57 ` Casey Schaufler
2011-04-28 0:06 ` Tyler Hicks
2011-04-28 0:06 ` Tyler Hicks
2011-04-28 12:35 ` Roberto Sassu
2011-04-28 12:35 ` Roberto Sassu
2011-04-28 17:37 ` Casey Schaufler
2011-04-28 17:37 ` Casey Schaufler
2011-04-28 17:56 ` Eric Paris
2011-04-28 17:56 ` Eric Paris
2011-04-29 9:26 ` Roberto Sassu
2011-04-29 9:26 ` Roberto Sassu
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2011-04-29 9:39 Roberto Sassu
2011-04-29 9:39 ` Roberto Sassu
2011-04-29 15:46 ` Casey Schaufler
2011-04-29 15:46 ` Casey Schaufler
2011-04-29 19:09 ` Guido Trentalancia
2011-04-29 19:09 ` Guido Trentalancia
2011-05-02 8:53 ` Roberto Sassu
2011-05-02 8:53 ` Roberto Sassu
2011-05-03 22:58 ` Casey Schaufler
2011-05-03 22:58 ` Casey Schaufler
2011-05-03 23:58 ` John Johansen
2011-05-04 8:47 ` Roberto Sassu
2011-05-04 8:47 ` Roberto Sassu
2011-05-04 17:34 ` Casey Schaufler
2011-05-04 17:34 ` Casey Schaufler
2011-05-04 9:19 ` Roberto Sassu
2011-05-04 9:19 ` Roberto Sassu
2011-05-04 17:42 ` Casey Schaufler
2011-05-04 17:42 ` Casey Schaufler
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4DB83BDB.8080301@schaufler-ca.com \
--to=casey@schaufler-ca.com \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=ecryptfs-devel@lists.launchpad.net \
--cc=eparis@redhat.com \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=kirkland@canonical.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=roberto.sassu@polito.it \
--cc=safford@watson.ibm.com \
--cc=sds@tycho.nsa.gov \
--cc=selinux@tycho.nsa.gov \
--cc=tyhicks@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.