From: Oren Laadan <orenl@librato.com>
To: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Oren Laadan <orenl@cs.columbia.edu>,
Linux Containers <containers@lists.osdl.org>,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] cr: add generic LSM c/r support (v5)
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:03:38 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4AD8A76A.8030201@librato.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20091015170630.GA25069@us.ibm.com>
Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Oren Laadan (orenl@librato.com):
> ...
>>> + switch (sectype) {
>>> + case CKPT_SECURITY_MSG_MSG:
>>> + str = security_msg_msg_checkpoint(security);
>>> + break;
>>> + case CKPT_SECURITY_IPC:
>>> + str = security_ipc_checkpoint(security);
>>> + break;
>>> + case CKPT_SECURITY_FILE:
>>> + str = security_file_checkpoint(security);
>>> + break;
>>> + case CKPT_SECURITY_CRED:
>>> + str = security_cred_checkpoint(security);
>>> + break;
>>> + default:
>>> + str = ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>>> + break;
>>> + }
>> Let me suggest a different scheme (also last night's IRC); I think it's
>> less hackish and uses better the existing {checkpoint,restore}_obj().
>>
>> * Define one obj type CKPT_OBJ_SEC_{IPC, MSG_MSG, FILE, CRED}, with
>> matching c/r functions security_{c,r}_{ipc,msg_msg,file,cred}_obj()
>>
>> * Define one obj type for the string representation CKPT_OBJ_SEC_STR
>> with matchin c/r functions security_{c,r}_string_obj()
>>
>> * The helper will now:
>>
>> security_checkpoint_obj()
>> {
>> switch (type) {
>> case CKPT_OBJ_SEC_IPC:
>> ret = checkpoint_obj(ctx, sec, CKPT_OBJ_SEC_IPC);
>> break;
>> case CKPT_OBJ_SEC_CRED:
>> ret = checkpoint_obj(ctx, sec, CKPT_OBJ_SEC_CRED);
>> ...
>> }
>>
>> security_checkpoint_ipc_obj()
>> {
>> ...
>> ckpt_lsm_str = str_from_sec_ipc(); /* like you do now */
>> objref = checkpoint_obj(ctx, ckpt_lsm_str, CKPT_OBJ_SEC_STR);
>> ...
>> h->objref = objref;
>> ckpt_write_obj();
>> }
>>
>> Perhaps a variation on this where the string is checkpoint_obj()'ed
>> first would also work.
>>
>> I haven't looked at all the details, but I hope something along these
>> lines would help untangle the current mess.
>
> So as discussed on irc, that by itself won't work bc (a) smack
> will checkpoint the same void* as multiple objtypes, and the
> objhash will complain.
>
> Since we've gone over several possibilities on irc, let me summarize
> some here:
>
> 1. do the restore_security() in the code instead of using an objref
> to have it called automatically. That stops me having to write an
> objref by hand before writing out the CKT_HDR_CRED. That's fine
> with me, but then I won't be using checkpoint_obj() either, so I
> want to make sure I'm not going to change all the restore callers
> just to end up nixing that path.
This is similar to how pipes/fifo are handled: first check for a
common inode (CKPT_OBJ_INODE only used during restart).
I agree that it is not as pretty to use it for security void* that
are kind of an independent shared object. However, it is clean.
>
> 2. alter the objhash to not complain if the same void* is checkpointed
> as a different type. That may have safety implications for the rest
> of the objhash users, especially at restart where we can't really trust the
> input.
Agree with your concerns, this is not my favorite.
>
> 3. have security_checkpoint_obj() 'reserve' a dummy objsec by
> stuffing the void* security, then assume that the objref for
> the string representation will be objref(void*security)+1.
> This might cause problems if we later parallelize checkpoint so
> that objref+1 is no longer valid.
I don't like this. Too hacky.
>
> 4. Add a new field to the struct ckpt_obj which lets us store
> the objref for the string pointer in the ckpt_obj for the void*.
Can you elaborate on what this entails ?
E.g., do you want to be able to store an arbitrary data field for
an object, and add interface to set and get it ? (If so, what is
the proposed api ?)
>
> For completeness, the latest version which I actually sent out
> did:
>
> 5. Define two objhash object types for the lsm obj, one to
> use at checkpoint, and one at restart. At checkpoint, it
> stuffs the void* security into the objhash and manually writes
> out a checkpoint entry for the context string. At restart, it
> places a struct containing the context string in the objhash.
> The type used at restart must have ->get/->drop defined so that
> the struct is freed at the end of restart, while at checkpoint
> we can't hvae ->get/->drop bc the void* is opaque (and persistand
> relative to the checkpoint operation).
:(
>
> And what I was starting on until the latest irc conversation
> was (3).
>
> At the moment (4) seems to me like the best path.
There is a 6th option: allow callers of checkpoint_obj() to pass
another arbitrary argument to the obj-type-specific checkpoint
function. So you'd pass the type of the security void* along to
it.
Oren.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-10-16 17:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-10-09 20:55 [PATCH 1/4] debug: add a few ckpt_debugs Serge E. Hallyn
[not found] ` <20091009205552.GA5778-r/Jw6+rmf7HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2009-10-09 20:56 ` [PATCH 2/4] cr: add generic LSM c/r support (v5) Serge E. Hallyn
[not found] ` <20091009205626.GA5823-r/Jw6+rmf7HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2009-10-15 14:57 ` Oren Laadan
2009-10-15 17:06 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2009-10-16 17:03 ` Oren Laadan [this message]
2009-10-16 17:41 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2009-10-09 20:56 ` [PATCH 3/4] cr: add smack support to lsm c/r (v4) Serge E. Hallyn
2009-10-09 20:57 ` [PATCH 4/4] cr: add selinux support (v6) Serge E. Hallyn
[not found] ` <20091009205731.GC5823-r/Jw6+rmf7HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2009-10-09 21:15 ` Daniel J Walsh
[not found] ` <4ACFA7F1.6060209-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2009-10-09 22:31 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2009-10-14 22:41 ` [PATCH 1/4] debug: add a few ckpt_debugs Oren Laadan
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=4AD8A76A.8030201@librato.com \
--to=orenl@librato.com \
--cc=containers@lists.osdl.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=orenl@cs.columbia.edu \
--cc=serue@us.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox