From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
To: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>,
James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@redhat.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH RFC 0/3] security: allow a LSM to specify NO-OP return code
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2023 19:12:39 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <cover.1691082677.git.pabeni@redhat.com> (raw)
This is another attempt to solve the current problem with eBPF LSM,
already discussed at least in [1].
The basic idea is to introduce the minimum amount of changes to let
the core consider a no-op any LSM hooks returning the
LSM_RET_DEFAULT [2].
AFAICS that is already the case for most int hooks with LSM_RET_DEFAULT
equal to 0 due to the current call_int_hook implementation. Even most
int hook with non zero LSM_RET_DEFAULT are not problematic. Specifically
the hooks [3]:
fs_context_parse_param
dentry_init_security
inode_getsecurity
inode_setsecurity
inode_copy_up_xattr
task_prctl
security_secid_to_secctx
already have special handling for to basically ignore default return
value from the LSMs, while:
security_getprocattr
security_setprocattr
only operate on the specified LSM.
The only hooks that need some love are:
* hooks that have a 0 LSM_RET_DEFAULT, but with no LSM loaded returns a
non zero value to the security_<hook> caller:
sb_set_mnt_opts
inode_init_security
inode_getsecctx
socket_getpeersec_stream
socket_getpeersec_dgram
* hooks that have a 0 LSM_RET_DEFAULT, but internally security_<hook>
uses a non zero return value as a selector to perform a default
action:
inode_setxattr
inode_removexattr
* hooks the somehow have to reconciliate multiple, non-zero, LSM return
values to take a single decision:
vm_enough_memory
xfrm_state_pol_flow_match
This series introduces a new variant of the call_int_hook macro and
changes the LSM_RET_DEFAULT for the mentioned hooks, to achieve the
goal [2].
The patches have been split according to the above grouping with the
hope to simplify the reviews, but I guess could be squashed in a single
one.
A simple follow-up would be extend the new hook usage to the hooks [3]
to reduce the code duplication.
Sharing as an early RFC (with almost no testing) to try to understand if
this path is a no go or instead is somewhat viable.
[1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/20220609234601.2026362-1-kpsingh@kernel.org/
Paolo Abeni (3):
security: introduce and use call_int_hook_ignore_default()
security: two more call_int_hook_ignore_default use-cases
security: more call_int_hook_ignore_default use-cases
include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h | 16 +++----
security/security.c | 83 ++++++++++++++++++-----------------
2 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-)
--
2.41.0
next reply other threads:[~2023-08-03 17:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-08-03 17:12 Paolo Abeni [this message]
2023-08-03 17:12 ` [PATCH RFC 1/3] security: introduce and use call_int_hook_ignore_default() Paolo Abeni
2023-08-03 17:12 ` [PATCH RFC 2/3] security: two more call_int_hook_ignore_default use-cases Paolo Abeni
2023-08-03 17:12 ` [PATCH RFC 3/3] security: " Paolo Abeni
2023-08-07 18:57 ` [PATCH RFC 0/3] security: allow a LSM to specify NO-OP return code Casey Schaufler
2023-08-23 15:06 ` Paolo Abeni
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=cover.1691082677.git.pabeni@redhat.com \
--to=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=omosnace@redhat.com \
--cc=paul@paul-moore.com \
--cc=serge@hallyn.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.