Re: [RFC PATCH v19 1/5] exec: Add a new AT_CHECK flag to execveat(2)

Jarkko Sakkinen
2024-07-20T11:43:53Z

On Sat Jul 20, 2024 at 4:59 AM EEST, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Jul 18, 2024, at 8:22 PM, Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> wrote:
> >
> > ﻿On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 09:02:56AM +0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >>>> On Jul 17, 2024, at 6:01 PM, Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 09:26:22AM +0100, Steve Dower wrote:
> >>>>> On 17/07/2024 07:33, Jeff Xu wrote:
> >>>>> Consider those cases: I think:
> >>>>> a> relying purely on userspace for enforcement does't seem to be
> >>>>> effective, e.g. it is trivial to call open(), then mmap() it into
> >>>>> executable memory.
> >>>>
> >>>> If there's a way to do this without running executable code that had to pass
> >>>> a previous execveat() check, then yeah, it's not effective (e.g. a Python
> >>>> interpreter that *doesn't* enforce execveat() is a trivial way to do it).
> >>>>
> >>>> Once arbitrary code is running, all bets are off. So long as all arbitrary
> >>>> code is being checked itself, it's allowed to do things that would bypass
> >>>> later checks (and it's up to whoever audited it in the first place to
> >>>> prevent this by not giving it the special mark that allows it to pass the
> >>>> check).
> >>>
> >>> Exactly. As explained in the patches, one crucial prerequisite is that
> >>> the executable code is trusted, and the system must provide integrity
> >>> guarantees. We cannot do anything without that. This patches series is
> >>> a building block to fix a blind spot on Linux systems to be able to
> >>> fully control executability.
> >>
> >> Circling back to my previous comment (did that ever get noticed?), I
> >
> > Yes, I replied to your comments. Did I miss something?
>
> I missed that email in the pile, sorry. I’ll reply separately.
>
> >
> >> don’t think this is quite right:
> >>
> >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/CALCETrWYu=PYJSgyJ-vaa+3BGAry8Jo8xErZLiGR3U5h6+U0tA@mail.gmail.com/
> >>
> >> On a basic system configuration, a given path either may or may not be
> >> executed. And maybe that path has some integrity check (dm-verity,
> >> etc). So the kernel should tell the interpreter/loader whether the
> >> target may be executed. All fine.
> >>
> >> But I think the more complex cases are more interesting, and the
> >> “execute a program” process IS NOT BINARY. An attempt to execute can
> >> be rejected outright, or it can be allowed *with a change to creds or
> >> security context*. It would be entirely reasonable to have a policy
> >> that allows execution of non-integrity-checked files but in a very
> >> locked down context only.
> >
> > I guess you mean to transition to a sandbox when executing an untrusted
> > file. This is a good idea. I talked about role transition in the
> > patch's description:
> >
> > With the information that a script interpreter is about to interpret a
> > script, an LSM security policy can adjust caller's access rights or log
> > execution request as for native script execution (e.g. role transition).
> > This is possible thanks to the call to security_bprm_creds_for_exec().
>
> …
>
> > This patch series brings the minimal building blocks to have a
> > consistent execution environment. Role transitions for script execution
> > are left to LSMs. For instance, we could extend Landlock to
> > automatically sandbox untrusted scripts.
>
> I’m not really convinced. There’s more to building an API that
> enables LSM hooks than merely sticking the hook somewhere in kernel
> code. It needs to be a defined API. If you call an operation “check”,
> then people will expect it to check, not to change the caller’s
> credentials. And people will mess it up in both directions (e.g.
> callers will call it and then open try to load some library that they
> should have loaded first, or callers will call it and forget to close
> fds first.
>
> And there should probably be some interaction with dumpable as well.
> If I “check” a file for executability, that should not suddenly allow
> someone to ptrace me?
>
> And callers need to know to exit on failure, not carry on.
>
>
> More concretely, a runtime that fully opts in to this may well "check"
> multiple things. For example, if I do:
>
> $ ld.so ~/.local/bin/some_program (i.e. I literally execve ld.so)
>
> then ld.so will load several things:
>
> ~/.local/bin/some_program
> libc.so
> other random DSOs, some of which may well be in my home directory

What would really help to comprehend this patch set would be a set of
test scripts, preferably something that you can run easily with
BuildRoot or similar.

Scripts would demonstrate the use cases for the patch set. Then it
would be easier to develop scripts that would underline the corner
cases. I would keep all this out of kselftest shenanigans for now.

I feel that the patch set is hovering in abstractions with examples
that you cannot execute.

I added the patches to standard test CI hack:

https://codeberg.org/jarkko/linux-tpmdd-test

But after I booted up a kernel I had no idea what to do with it. And
all this lenghty discussion makes it even more confusing.

Please find some connection to the real world before sending any new
version of this (e.g. via test scripts). I think this should not be
pulled before almost anyone doing kernel dev can comprehend the "gist"
at least in some reasonable level.

BR, Jarkko