public inbox for linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Serge Hallyn <serge@hallyn.com>
To: "Christian Göttsche" <cgzones@googlemail.com>
Cc: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	bpf@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/10] capability: add any wrappers to test for multiple caps with exactly one audit message
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 15:19:16 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZfStRK6Z6Rm/KTJj@serge-l-PF3DENS3> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240315113828.258005-2-cgzones@googlemail.com>

On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 12:37:23PM +0100, Christian Göttsche wrote:
> Add the interfaces `capable_any()` and `ns_capable_any()` as an
> alternative to multiple `capable()`/`ns_capable()` calls, like
> `capable_any(CAP_SYS_NICE, CAP_SYS_ADMIN)` instead of
> `capable(CAP_SYS_NICE) || capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)`.
> 
> `capable_any()`/`ns_capable_any()` will in particular generate exactly
> one audit message, either for the left most capability in effect or, if
> the task has none, the first one.
> 
> This is especially helpful with regard to SELinux, where each audit
> message about a not allowed capability request will create a denial
> message.  Using this new wrapper with the least invasive capability as
> left most argument (e.g. CAP_SYS_NICE before CAP_SYS_ADMIN) enables
> policy writers to only grant the least invasive one for the particular
> subject instead of both.
> 
> CC: linux-block@vger.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Christian Göttsche <cgzones@googlemail.com>

Reviewed-by: Serge Hallyn <serge@hallyn.com>

> ---
> v5:
>    - add check for identical passed capabilities
>    - rename internal helper according to flag rename to
>      ns_capable_noauditondeny()
> v4:
>    Use CAP_OPT_NODENYAUDIT via added ns_capable_nodenyaudit()
> v3:
>    - rename to capable_any()
>    - fix typo in function documentation
>    - add ns_capable_any()
> v2:
>    avoid varargs and fix to two capabilities; capable_or3() can be added
>    later if needed
> ---
>  include/linux/capability.h | 10 ++++++
>  kernel/capability.c        | 73 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 83 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/capability.h b/include/linux/capability.h
> index 0c356a517991..eeb958440656 100644
> --- a/include/linux/capability.h
> +++ b/include/linux/capability.h
> @@ -146,7 +146,9 @@ extern bool has_capability_noaudit(struct task_struct *t, int cap);
>  extern bool has_ns_capability_noaudit(struct task_struct *t,
>  				      struct user_namespace *ns, int cap);
>  extern bool capable(int cap);
> +extern bool capable_any(int cap1, int cap2);
>  extern bool ns_capable(struct user_namespace *ns, int cap);
> +extern bool ns_capable_any(struct user_namespace *ns, int cap1, int cap2);
>  extern bool ns_capable_noaudit(struct user_namespace *ns, int cap);
>  extern bool ns_capable_setid(struct user_namespace *ns, int cap);
>  #else
> @@ -172,10 +174,18 @@ static inline bool capable(int cap)
>  {
>  	return true;
>  }
> +static inline bool capable_any(int cap1, int cap2)
> +{
> +	return true;
> +}
>  static inline bool ns_capable(struct user_namespace *ns, int cap)
>  {
>  	return true;
>  }
> +static inline bool ns_capable_any(struct user_namespace *ns, int cap1, int cap2)
> +{
> +	return true;
> +}
>  static inline bool ns_capable_noaudit(struct user_namespace *ns, int cap)
>  {
>  	return true;
> diff --git a/kernel/capability.c b/kernel/capability.c
> index dac4df77e376..73358abfe2e1 100644
> --- a/kernel/capability.c
> +++ b/kernel/capability.c
> @@ -402,6 +402,23 @@ bool ns_capable_noaudit(struct user_namespace *ns, int cap)
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(ns_capable_noaudit);
>  
> +/**
> + * ns_capable_noauditondeny - Determine if the current task has a superior capability
> + * (unaudited when unauthorized) in effect
> + * @ns:  The usernamespace we want the capability in
> + * @cap: The capability to be tested for
> + *
> + * Return true if the current task has the given superior capability currently
> + * available for use, false if not.
> + *
> + * This sets PF_SUPERPRIV on the task if the capability is available on the
> + * assumption that it's about to be used.
> + */
> +static bool ns_capable_noauditondeny(struct user_namespace *ns, int cap)
> +{
> +	return ns_capable_common(ns, cap, CAP_OPT_NOAUDIT_ONDENY);
> +}
> +
>  /**
>   * ns_capable_setid - Determine if the current task has a superior capability
>   * in effect, while signalling that this check is being done from within a
> @@ -421,6 +438,62 @@ bool ns_capable_setid(struct user_namespace *ns, int cap)
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(ns_capable_setid);
>  
> +/**
> + * ns_capable_any - Determine if the current task has one of two superior capabilities in effect
> + * @ns:  The usernamespace we want the capability in
> + * @cap1: The capabilities to be tested for first
> + * @cap2: The capabilities to be tested for secondly
> + *
> + * Return true if the current task has at least one of the two given superior
> + * capabilities currently available for use, false if not.
> + *
> + * In contrast to or'ing capable() this call will create exactly one audit
> + * message, either for @cap1, if it is granted or both are not permitted,
> + * or @cap2, if it is granted while the other one is not.
> + *
> + * The capabilities should be ordered from least to most invasive, i.e. CAP_SYS_ADMIN last.
> + *
> + * This sets PF_SUPERPRIV on the task if the capability is available on the
> + * assumption that it's about to be used.
> + */
> +bool ns_capable_any(struct user_namespace *ns, int cap1, int cap2)
> +{
> +	if (cap1 == cap2)
> +		return ns_capable(ns, cap1);
> +
> +	if (ns_capable_noauditondeny(ns, cap1))
> +		return true;
> +
> +	if (ns_capable_noauditondeny(ns, cap2))
> +		return true;
> +
> +	return ns_capable(ns, cap1);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(ns_capable_any);
> +
> +/**
> + * capable_any - Determine if the current task has one of two superior capabilities in effect
> + * @cap1: The capabilities to be tested for first
> + * @cap2: The capabilities to be tested for secondly
> + *
> + * Return true if the current task has at least one of the two given superior
> + * capabilities currently available for use, false if not.
> + *
> + * In contrast to or'ing capable() this call will create exactly one audit
> + * message, either for @cap1, if it is granted or both are not permitted,
> + * or @cap2, if it is granted while the other one is not.
> + *
> + * The capabilities should be ordered from least to most invasive, i.e. CAP_SYS_ADMIN last.
> + *
> + * This sets PF_SUPERPRIV on the task if the capability is available on the
> + * assumption that it's about to be used.
> + */
> +bool capable_any(int cap1, int cap2)
> +{
> +	return ns_capable_any(&init_user_ns, cap1, cap2);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(capable_any);
> +
>  /**
>   * capable - Determine if the current task has a superior capability in effect
>   * @cap: The capability to be tested for
> -- 
> 2.43.0
> 
> 

  parent reply	other threads:[~2024-03-15 20:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-03-15 11:37 [PATCH 01/10] capability: introduce new capable flag CAP_OPT_NOAUDIT_ONDENY Christian Göttsche
2024-03-15 11:37 ` [PATCH 02/10] capability: add any wrappers to test for multiple caps with exactly one audit message Christian Göttsche
2024-03-15 16:45   ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-03-15 18:27     ` Christian Göttsche
2024-03-15 18:30       ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-03-15 18:41     ` Jens Axboe
2024-03-15 19:48       ` Paul Moore
2024-03-15 21:16       ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-03-16 17:17         ` Jens Axboe
2024-03-15 20:19   ` Serge Hallyn [this message]
2024-06-10 20:58     ` Paul Moore
2024-03-15 11:37 ` [PATCH 03/10] capability: use new capable_any functionality Christian Göttsche
2024-03-15 16:46   ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-03-15 11:37 ` [PATCH 04/10] block: " Christian Göttsche
2024-03-15 11:37 ` [PATCH 05/10] drivers: " Christian Göttsche
2024-03-15 15:03   ` Felix Kuehling
2024-03-15 11:37 ` [PATCH 06/10] fs: " Christian Göttsche
2024-03-15 11:37 ` [PATCH 07/10] kernel: " Christian Göttsche
2024-03-15 15:03   ` Tycho Andersen
2024-03-15 11:37 ` [PATCH 08/10] net: " Christian Göttsche
2024-03-15 23:11   ` Kuniyuki Iwashima
2024-03-15 11:37 ` [PATCH 09/10] bpf: " Christian Göttsche
2024-03-15 16:43   ` Andrii Nakryiko
2024-03-15 11:37 ` [PATCH 10/10] coccinelle: add script for capable_any() Christian Göttsche
2024-03-15 11:37 ` [PATCH 00/10] Introduce capable_any() Christian Göttsche
2024-03-15 19:59 ` [PATCH 01/10] capability: introduce new capable flag CAP_OPT_NOAUDIT_ONDENY Serge Hallyn
2024-06-10 20:56 ` Paul Moore
2024-06-10 21:12 ` John Johansen

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=ZfStRK6Z6Rm/KTJj@serge-l-PF3DENS3 \
    --to=serge@hallyn.com \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=cgzones@googlemail.com \
    --cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --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