Linux filesystem development
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM)" <ljs@kernel.org>
To: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Cc: "Paul Moore" <paul@paul-moore.com>,
	"James Morris" <jmorris@namei.org>,
	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
	"Stephen Smalley" <stephen.smalley.work@gmail.com>,
	"Jeff Xu" <jeffxu@google.com>,
	"Thiébaud Weksteen" <tweek@google.com>,
	"Alexander Viro" <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	"Christian Brauner" <brauner@kernel.org>,
	"Jan Kara" <jack@suse.cz>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
	"Ondrej Mosnacek" <omosnace@redhat.com>,
	selinux@vger.kernel.org,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	"Liam R. Howlett" <liam@infradead.org>,
	"Vlastimil Babka" <vbabka@kernel.org>,
	"Pedro Falcato" <pfalcato@suse.de>,
	"David Hildenbrand" <david@kernel.org>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] proc: query LSMs for introspective mem access (if PROC_MEM_FORCE_ALWAYS)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2026 14:06:59 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ao7kzYoGRrhkaoB4@gremlin> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260825-selinux-pokemem-v2-2-b46bc64916d8@google.com>

On Tue, Aug 25, 2026 at 08:39:18PM +0200, Jann Horn wrote:
> If the system is running with PROC_MEM_FORCE_ALWAYS, LSMs currently have no
> good opportunity to block a process from overwriting read-only code in its
> own address space through FOLL_FORCE writes via /proc/self/mem.
> The security_ptrace_access_check() LSM hook is bypassed when a process
> opens /proc/self/mem because this is considered "introspection".
>
> This causes a hole in SELinux EXECMEM enforcement, which tries to ensure
> that a process cannot create executable anonymous pages.
>
> PROC_MEM_FORCE_PTRACE prevents that and ensures that such FOLL_FORCE
> accesses are only possible when the LSM allows ptrace() attachment; but it
> is unclear how quickly PROC_MEM_FORCE_PTRACE can be deployed in
> environments running lots of third-party code, such as Android.
>
> So, introduce a new LSM hook that can forbid FOLL_FORCE specifically for
> such "introspective" accesses.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>

Thanks for the name change! :)

Nothing stands out so:

Acked-by: Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <ljs@kernel.org>

> ---
>  fs/proc/base.c                |  9 +++++++++
>  include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h |  1 +
>  include/linux/security.h      |  6 ++++++
>  security/security.c           | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
>  4 files changed, 36 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/fs/proc/base.c b/fs/proc/base.c
> index bec6197329dc..dc6fdcb47b79 100644
> --- a/fs/proc/base.c
> +++ b/fs/proc/base.c
> @@ -851,6 +851,11 @@ static int __mem_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file, unsigned int mode)
>  /* private_data for proc_mem_operations */
>  struct mem_private {
>  	struct mm_struct *mm;
> +	/*
> +	 * Was the ptrace access check on open bypassed because the opener used
> +	 * the same MM (introspection)?
> +	 */
> +	bool opened_by_owner;
>  };
>
>  static int mem_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
> @@ -864,12 +869,14 @@ static int mem_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
>  	priv->mm = proc_mem_open(inode, PTRACE_MODE_ATTACH);
>  	if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(priv->mm))
>  		return priv->mm ? PTR_ERR(priv->mm) : -ESRCH;
> +	priv->opened_by_owner = priv->mm == current->mm;
>  	file->private_data = no_free_ptr(priv);
>  	return 0;
>  }
>
>  static bool proc_mem_foll_force(struct file *file, struct mm_struct *mm)
>  {
> +	struct mem_private *priv = file->private_data;
>  	struct task_struct *task;
>  	bool ptrace_active = false;
>
> @@ -886,6 +893,8 @@ static bool proc_mem_foll_force(struct file *file, struct mm_struct *mm)
>  		}
>  		return ptrace_active;
>  	default:
> +		if (priv->opened_by_owner)
> +			return security_mem_foll_force_opened_by_owner(file->f_cred) == 0;
>  		return true;
>  	}
>  }
> diff --git a/include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h b/include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h
> index 65c9609ec207..50e3f0abc676 100644
> --- a/include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h
> +++ b/include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h
> @@ -36,6 +36,7 @@ LSM_HOOK(int, 0, binder_transfer_file, const struct cred *from,
>  LSM_HOOK(int, 0, ptrace_access_check, struct task_struct *child,
>  	 unsigned int mode)
>  LSM_HOOK(int, 0, ptrace_traceme, struct task_struct *parent)
> +LSM_HOOK(int, 0, mem_foll_force_opened_by_owner, const struct cred *subject)
>  LSM_HOOK(int, 0, capget, const struct task_struct *target, kernel_cap_t *effective,
>  	 kernel_cap_t *inheritable, kernel_cap_t *permitted)
>  LSM_HOOK(int, 0, capset, struct cred *new, const struct cred *old,
> diff --git a/include/linux/security.h b/include/linux/security.h
> index 153e9043058f..74eb876054b0 100644
> --- a/include/linux/security.h
> +++ b/include/linux/security.h
> @@ -338,6 +338,7 @@ int security_binder_transfer_file(const struct cred *from,
>  				  const struct cred *to, const struct file *file);
>  int security_ptrace_access_check(struct task_struct *child, unsigned int mode);
>  int security_ptrace_traceme(struct task_struct *parent);
> +int security_mem_foll_force_opened_by_owner(const struct cred *subject);
>  int security_capget(const struct task_struct *target,
>  		    kernel_cap_t *effective,
>  		    kernel_cap_t *inheritable,
> @@ -676,6 +677,11 @@ static inline int security_ptrace_traceme(struct task_struct *parent)
>  	return cap_ptrace_traceme(parent);
>  }
>
> +static inline int security_mem_foll_force_opened_by_owner(const struct cred *subject)
> +{
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
>  static inline int security_capget(const struct task_struct *target,
>  				   kernel_cap_t *effective,
>  				   kernel_cap_t *inheritable,
> diff --git a/security/security.c b/security/security.c
> index 71aea8fdf014..fff26ff65e07 100644
> --- a/security/security.c
> +++ b/security/security.c
> @@ -595,6 +595,26 @@ int security_ptrace_traceme(struct task_struct *parent)
>  	return call_int_hook(ptrace_traceme, parent);
>  }
>
> +/**
> + * security_mem_foll_force_opened_by_owner() - Check if introspective FOLL_FORCE is allowed
> + * @subject: credentials of the process accessing its own memory
> + *
> + * Check if FOLL_FORCE is allowed for accessing process memory through
> + * /proc/$pid/mem in the case where the opener's MM was the same as the target
> + * MM, meaning the security_ptrace_access_check() hook was bypassed on open().
> + * (current->mm does not matter for this; for example, if write() is called on
> + * an FD that was received from another process which obtained it with
> + * open("/proc/self/mem"), this hook still runs.)
> + *
> + * This is only used when the system is configured with PROC_MEM_FORCE_ALWAYS.
> + *
> + * Return: Returns 0 if permission is granted.
> + */
> +int security_mem_foll_force_opened_by_owner(const struct cred *subject)
> +{
> +	return call_int_hook(mem_foll_force_opened_by_owner, subject);
> +}
> +
>  /**
>   * security_capget() - Get the capability sets for a process
>   * @target: target process
>
> --
> 2.55.0.860.g4b6b3295ed-goog
>

--
Cheers, Lorenzo

  reply	other threads:[~2026-08-26 13:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-08-25 18:39 [PATCH v2 0/3] proc,security,selinux: let SELinux block FOLL_FORCE for /proc/self/mem Jann Horn
2026-08-25 18:39 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] proc: refactor /proc/$pid/mem to use struct as private_data Jann Horn
2026-08-25 18:39 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] proc: query LSMs for introspective mem access (if PROC_MEM_FORCE_ALWAYS) Jann Horn
2026-08-26 13:06   ` Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) [this message]
2026-08-27 16:59   ` David Hildenbrand (Arm)
2026-08-28  1:10   ` Paul Moore
2026-08-28 13:03     ` Jann Horn
2026-08-28 13:20       ` Jann Horn
2026-08-28 21:10         ` Paul Moore
2026-08-28 21:04       ` Paul Moore
2026-08-25 18:39 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] selinux: require PROCESS__PTRACE for FOLL_FORCE introspection Jann Horn
2026-08-25 19:30   ` Stephen Smalley
2026-08-27 17:46   ` Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM)
2026-08-28  1:10   ` Paul Moore
2026-08-28 13:04     ` Jann Horn

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=ao7kzYoGRrhkaoB4@gremlin \
    --to=ljs@kernel.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=brauner@kernel.org \
    --cc=david@kernel.org \
    --cc=jack@suse.cz \
    --cc=jannh@google.com \
    --cc=jeffxu@google.com \
    --cc=jmorris@namei.org \
    --cc=liam@infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=omosnace@redhat.com \
    --cc=paul@paul-moore.com \
    --cc=pfalcato@suse.de \
    --cc=selinux@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=serge@hallyn.com \
    --cc=stephen.smalley.work@gmail.com \
    --cc=tweek@google.com \
    --cc=vbabka@kernel.org \
    --cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    /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