From: Oren Laadan <orenl-RdfvBDnrOixBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org>
To: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue-r/Jw6+rmf7HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
Cc: Linux Containers <containers-qjLDD68F18O7TbgM5vRIOg@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] cr: add generic LSM c/r support (v6)
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:13:47 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4ADCAC5B.9080205@librato.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20091019144341.GA30566-r/Jw6+rmf7HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Documentation/checkpoint/readme.txt begins:
> """
> Application checkpoint/restart is the ability to save the state
> of a running application so that it can later resume its execution
> from the time at which it was checkpointed.
> """
>
> This patch adds generic support for c/r of LSM credentials. Support
> for Smack and SELinux (and TOMOYO if appropriate) will be added later.
> Capabilities is already supported through generic creds code.
>
> This patch supports ipc_perm, msg_msg, cred (task) and file ->security
> fields. Inodes, superblocks, netif, and xfrm currently are restored
> not through sys_restart() but through container creation, and so the
> security fields should be done then as well. Network should be added
> when network c/r is added.
>
> Briefly, all security fields must be exported by the LSM as a simple
> null-terminated string. They are checkpointed through the
> security_checkpoint_obj() helper, because we must pass it an extra
> sectype field. Splitting SECURITY_OBJ_SEC into one type per object
> type would not work because, in Smack, one void* security is used for
> all object types. But we must pass the sectype field because in
> SELinux a different type of structure is stashed in each object type.
>
> The RESTART_KEEP_LSM flag indicates that the LSM should
> attempt to reuse checkpointed security labels. It is always
> invalid when the LSM at restart differs from that at checkpoint.
> It is currently only usable for capabilities.
>
> (For capabilities, restart without RESTART_KEEP_LSM is technically
> not implemented. There actually might be a use case for that,
> but the safety of it is dubious so for now we always re-create
> checkpointed capability sets whether RESTART_KEEP_LSM is
> specified or not)
[...]
> oct 19: At checkpoint, we insert the void* security into the
> objhash. The first time that we do so, we next write out
> the string representation of the context to the checkpoint
> image, along with the value of the objref for the void*
> security, and insert that into the objhash. Then at
> restart, when we read a LSM context, we read the objref
> which the void* security had at checkpoint, and we then
> insert the string context with that objref as well.
I hoped to see similar comment inlined in the code.
[...]
> @@ -159,8 +175,12 @@ int checkpoint_file_common(struct ckpt_ctx *ctx, struct file *file,
> if (h->f_credref < 0)
> return h->f_credref;
>
> - ckpt_debug("file %s credref %d", file->f_dentry->d_name.name,
> - h->f_credref);
> + ret = checkpoint_file_security(ctx, file, &h->f_secref);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + return ret;
How about a ckpt_write_err() here, or in checkpoint_file_security(),
or in security_checkpoint_obj(), or all of the above.
> +
> + ckpt_debug("file %s credref %d secref %d\n",
> + file->f_dentry->d_name.name, h->f_credref, h->f_secref);
[...]
> @@ -433,6 +464,22 @@ static struct ckpt_obj_ops ckpt_obj_ops[] = {
> .checkpoint = checkpoint_tty,
> .restore = restore_tty,
> },
> + /* LSM void *security on objhash - at checkpoint */
> + {
> + .obj_name = "SECURITY PTR",
> + .obj_type = CKPT_OBJ_SECURITY_PTR,
> + .ref_drop = obj_no_drop,
> + .ref_grab = obj_no_grab,
> + },
I really wish there was a comment explaining why it's ok to not
drop/grab the reference (because the security is always referenced
by an object that is itself grabbed, e.g. file, ipc etc ?).
> + /* LSM security strings - at restart */
> + {
> + .obj_name = "SECURITY STRING",
> + .obj_type = CKPT_OBJ_SECURITY,
> + .ref_grab = lsm_string_grab,
> + .ref_drop = lsm_string_drop,
> + .checkpoint = checkpoint_lsm_string,
> + .restore = restore_lsm_string_wrap,
> + },
> };
[...]
> @@ -376,6 +383,16 @@ struct ckpt_hdr_groupinfo {
> __u32 groups[0];
> } __attribute__((aligned(8)));
>
> +struct ckpt_hdr_lsm {
> + struct ckpt_hdr h;
> + __s32 ptrref;
> + __u8 sectype;
> + __u8 padding;
I don't think padding is necessary here...
> + /*
> + * This is followed by a string of size len+1,
> + * null-terminated
> + */
> +} __attribute__((aligned(8)));
[...]
> +/**
> + * security_checkpoint_obj - if first checkpoint of this void* security,
> + * then 1. ask the LSM for a string representing the context, 2. checkpoint
> + * that string
> + * @ctx: the checkpoint context
> + * @security: the void* security being checkpointed
> + * @sectype: indicates the type of object, because LSMs can (and do) store
> + * @secref: We return the objref here
> + * different types of data for different types of objects.
> + *
> + * Returns the objref of the checkpointed ckpt_lsm_string representing the
> + * context, or -error on error.
> + *
> + * This is only used at checkpoint of course.
> + */
> +int security_checkpoint_obj(struct ckpt_ctx *ctx, void *security,
> + int sectype, int *secref)
This function returns 0 for success or a negative error. It should
return the @secref instead of passing it by reference (see your
description of the return value above !)
[...]
> + /* Ask the LSM to apply a void*security to the object
> + * based on the checkpointed context string */
> + switch (sectype) {
> + case CKPT_SECURITY_IPC:
> + ret = security_ipc_restore(v, l->string);
Nit: I know it's not strictly necessary, but adding an explicit
type conversion here and in the other three seems cleaner
> + break;
> + case CKPT_SECURITY_MSG_MSG:
> + ret = security_msg_msg_restore(v, l->string);
> + break;
> + case CKPT_SECURITY_FILE:
> + ret = security_file_restore(v, l->string);
> + break;
> + case CKPT_SECURITY_CRED:
> + ret = security_cred_restore(ctx->file, v, l->string);
> + break;
> + default:
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + }
> + if (ret)
> + ckpt_debug("sectype %d objref %d lsm's hook returned %d\n",
> + sectype, secref, ret);
> + if (ret == -EOPNOTSUPP)
> + ret = 0;
If you silently ignore EOPNOTSUPP, how can a user tell if a restarted
succeeded fully or by silently skipping the security part ?
Should the user approve this behavior (e.g. RESTART_SECURITY_LAX...) ?
Also, I suggest the s/EOPNOTSUPP/ENOSYS/ all over the patch.
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +#endif
Oren.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-10-19 18:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-10-19 14:43 [PATCH 1/4] add lsm name and lsm_info (policy header) to container info Serge E. Hallyn
[not found] ` <20091019144315.GA30535-r/Jw6+rmf7HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2009-10-19 14:43 ` [PATCH 2/4] cr: add generic LSM c/r support (v6) Serge E. Hallyn
[not found] ` <20091019144341.GA30566-r/Jw6+rmf7HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2009-10-19 18:13 ` Oren Laadan [this message]
[not found] ` <4ADCAC5B.9080205-RdfvBDnrOixBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org>
2009-10-19 19:02 ` Serge E. Hallyn
[not found] ` <20091019190227.GA7201-r/Jw6+rmf7HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2009-10-21 1:03 ` Oren Laadan
[not found] ` <4ADE5DEA.2000606-RdfvBDnrOixBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org>
2009-10-21 1:18 ` Serge E. Hallyn
[not found] ` <20091021011846.GA26728-r/Jw6+rmf7HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2009-10-21 1:21 ` Oren Laadan
[not found] ` <4ADE621E.2080603-RdfvBDnrOixBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org>
2009-10-21 5:01 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2009-10-20 1:16 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2009-10-19 14:44 ` [PATCH user-cr] restart: accept the lsm_name field in header and add -k flag (v2) Serge E. Hallyn
2009-10-19 14:44 ` [PATCH 3/4] cr: add smack support to lsm c/r (v6) Serge E. Hallyn
2009-10-19 14:44 ` [PATCH 4/4] cr: add selinux support (v6) Serge E. Hallyn
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=4ADCAC5B.9080205@librato.com \
--to=orenl-rdfvbdnroixbdgjk7y7tuq@public.gmane.org \
--cc=containers-qjLDD68F18O7TbgM5vRIOg@public.gmane.org \
--cc=serue-r/Jw6+rmf7HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org \
/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