From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Krzysztof Opasiak Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/1] ioctl to disallow detaching kernel USB drivers Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:12:22 +0100 Message-ID: <565C8376.6070505@samsung.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-reply-to: Sender: linux-api-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Alan Stern Cc: Greg KH , =?UTF-8?Q?Emilio_L=c3=b3pez?= , kborer-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, reillyg-F7+t8E8rja9g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org, keescook-F7+t8E8rja9g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org, linux-api-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-usb-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, jorgelo-F7+t8E8rja9g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org, dan.carpenter-QHcLZuEGTsvQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On 11/30/2015 05:16 PM, Alan Stern wrote: > On Fri, 27 Nov 2015, Krzysztof Opasiak wrote: > >>>> I run through your code and as far as I understand above is not exactly >>>> true. Your patch allows only to prevent userspace from accessing interfaces >>>> which has kernel drivers, there is no way to stop an application from taking >>>> control over all free interfaces. >>>> >>>> Let's say that your device has 3 interfaces. First of them has a kernel >>>> driver but second and third doesn't. You have 2 apps. One should communicate >>>> using second interface and another one third. But first app is malicious and >>>> it claims all free interfaces of received device (your patch doesn't prevent >>>> this). And when second app starts it is unable to do anything with the >>>> device because all interfaces are taken. How would you like to handle this? >>> >>> You can't, and why would you ever want to, as you can't tell what an app >>> "should" or "should not" do. If you really care about this, then use a >>> LSM policy to prevent this. >> >> Well, an app can declare what it does and what it needs in it's manifest >> file (or some equivalent of this) and the platform should ensure that >> app can do only what it has declared. >> >> I would really like to use LSM policy in here but currently it is >> impossible as one device node represents whole device. Permissions (even >> those from LSM) are being checked only on open() not on each ioctl() so >> as far as I know there is nothing which prevents any owner of opened fd >> to claim all available (not taken by someone else) interfaces and LSM >> policy is unable to filter those calls (unless we add some LSM hooks >> over there). > > How about this approach? Once a process has dropped its usbfs > privileges, it's not allowed to claim any interfaces (either explicitly > or implicitly). Instead, it or some manager program must claim the > appropriate interfaces before dropping privileges. > I agree that restricting interface claiming only to privileged process is a good idea. Unfortunately this generates a problem when program needs more than one interface (like in cdc - data + control for example). We need to declare both of them in first call to "usb-manager" or reopen the dev node at second call and claim all interfaces claimed using this fd till now and claim one more and then drop privileges and send a new fd. Maybe better option would be to add optional argument to claim interface ioctl() and allow to claim interface for other fd than the current one? So "usb-manager" could have fd with full control and claim interfaces for apps which have fds with restricted privileges. Best regards, -- Krzysztof Opasiak Samsung R&D Institute Poland Samsung Electronics