Linux Security Modules development
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
To: Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@redhat.com>
Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, selinux@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Martin Pitt <mpitt@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] fs: don't audit the capability check in simple_xattr_list()
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2022 16:30:30 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20221103153030.ep5rqq2uetpclm3z@wittgenstein> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221103151205.702826-1-omosnace@redhat.com>

On Thu, Nov 03, 2022 at 04:12:05PM +0100, Ondrej Mosnacek wrote:
> The check being unconditional may lead to unwanted denials reported by
> LSMs when a process has the capability granted by DAC, but denied by an
> LSM. In the case of SELinux such denials are a problem, since they can't
> be effectively filtered out via the policy and when not silenced, they
> produce noise that may hide a true problem or an attack.
> 
> Checking for the capability only if any trusted xattr is actually
> present wouldn't really address the issue, since calling listxattr(2) on
> such node on its own doesn't indicate an explicit attempt to see the
> trusted xattrs. Additionally, it could potentially leak the presence of
> trusted xattrs to an unprivileged user if they can check for the denials
> (e.g. through dmesg).
> 
> Therefore, it's best (and simplest) to keep the check unconditional and
> instead use ns_capable_noaudit() that will silence any associated LSM
> denials.
> 
> Fixes: 38f38657444d ("xattr: extract simple_xattr code from tmpfs")
> Reported-by: Martin Pitt <mpitt@redhat.com>
> Suggested-by: Christian Brauner (Microsoft) <brauner@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@redhat.com>
> ---

Looks good,
Reviewed-by: Christian Brauner (Microsoft) <brauner@kernel.org>

  reply	other threads:[~2022-11-03 15:31 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-11-03 15:12 [PATCH v2] fs: don't audit the capability check in simple_xattr_list() Ondrej Mosnacek
2022-11-03 15:30 ` Christian Brauner [this message]
2022-11-05  4:38 ` Paul Moore
2022-11-05 11:34   ` Christian Brauner
2022-11-06 22:50     ` Paul Moore

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=20221103153030.ep5rqq2uetpclm3z@wittgenstein \
    --to=brauner@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mpitt@redhat.com \
    --cc=omosnace@redhat.com \
    --cc=selinux@vger.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