From: Martin Kelly <martin.kelly@crowdstrike.com>
To: "casey@schaufler-ca.com" <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
"linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org"
<linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: Re: Question about security_file_open contract
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2020 22:47:33 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <03e42a055bf34e7b8669158b3d7b940c@casmbox08.crowdstrike.sys> (raw)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 1:26 PM
> To: Martin Kelly <martin.kelly@crowdstrike.com>; linux-security-
> module@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
> Subject: [External] Re: Question about security_file_open contract
>
> On 11/18/2020 12:44 PM, Martin Kelly wrote:
> > - A process exits, calling task_exit().
> > - exit_fs() is called, setting current->fs = NULL.
> > - Next, exit_task_work() is called, which calls fput().
> > - In response to the fput(), the filesystem opens a file to update
> > some metadata, calling dentry_open().
>
> Which process do you expect the file to be opened for? As you point out,
> current is being torn down. What is your kernel driver doing that led you to
> think this was a good idea?
>
>
The driver is the OpenAFS filesystem. I'm not a developer for or expert in
OpenAFS, but from the stack, it appears to be updating a disk transaction
database to reflect a removed directory. It seems this happens to work most of
the time but does not play nice with LSMs.
> > - dentry_open() calls security_file_open(), calling into the LSM. The
> > LSM crashes because it assumes it's called from process context and
> > thus
> > current->fs is not NULL.
>
> Right. Without a valid process context it's impossible to make access
> control
> decisions.
>
> >
> > I'm trying to figure out exactly what the contract is here. Is it safe
> > for an LSM to assume current->fs should be non-NULL when
> > security_file_open is called? More generally, is it safe for an LSM
> > to assume that security_file_open will always be called from process
> > context? In other words, is the LSM at fault here or the driver?
>
> The driver. If you want to open files directly from the driver, as opposed
> to
> from a process, you need a valid kernel context.
>
OK, this is what I figured; thanks for confirming. Sounds like OpenAFS should
be patched to do this work in a kernel context.
> > Thanks,
> > Martin
reply other threads:[~2020-11-18 22:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
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=03e42a055bf34e7b8669158b3d7b940c@casmbox08.crowdstrike.sys \
--to=martin.kelly@crowdstrike.com \
--cc=casey@schaufler-ca.com \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).