From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
To: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>,
James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@redhat.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH RFC 0/3] security: allow a LSM to specify NO-OP return code
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2023 19:12:39 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <cover.1691082677.git.pabeni@redhat.com> (raw)
This is another attempt to solve the current problem with eBPF LSM,
already discussed at least in [1].
The basic idea is to introduce the minimum amount of changes to let
the core consider a no-op any LSM hooks returning the
LSM_RET_DEFAULT [2].
AFAICS that is already the case for most int hooks with LSM_RET_DEFAULT
equal to 0 due to the current call_int_hook implementation. Even most
int hook with non zero LSM_RET_DEFAULT are not problematic. Specifically
the hooks [3]:
fs_context_parse_param
dentry_init_security
inode_getsecurity
inode_setsecurity
inode_copy_up_xattr
task_prctl
security_secid_to_secctx
already have special handling for to basically ignore default return
value from the LSMs, while:
security_getprocattr
security_setprocattr
only operate on the specified LSM.
The only hooks that need some love are:
* hooks that have a 0 LSM_RET_DEFAULT, but with no LSM loaded returns a
non zero value to the security_<hook> caller:
sb_set_mnt_opts
inode_init_security
inode_getsecctx
socket_getpeersec_stream
socket_getpeersec_dgram
* hooks that have a 0 LSM_RET_DEFAULT, but internally security_<hook>
uses a non zero return value as a selector to perform a default
action:
inode_setxattr
inode_removexattr
* hooks the somehow have to reconciliate multiple, non-zero, LSM return
values to take a single decision:
vm_enough_memory
xfrm_state_pol_flow_match
This series introduces a new variant of the call_int_hook macro and
changes the LSM_RET_DEFAULT for the mentioned hooks, to achieve the
goal [2].
The patches have been split according to the above grouping with the
hope to simplify the reviews, but I guess could be squashed in a single
one.
A simple follow-up would be extend the new hook usage to the hooks [3]
to reduce the code duplication.
Sharing as an early RFC (with almost no testing) to try to understand if
this path is a no go or instead is somewhat viable.
[1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/20220609234601.2026362-1-kpsingh@kernel.org/
Paolo Abeni (3):
security: introduce and use call_int_hook_ignore_default()
security: two more call_int_hook_ignore_default use-cases
security: more call_int_hook_ignore_default use-cases
include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h | 16 +++----
security/security.c | 83 ++++++++++++++++++-----------------
2 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-)
--
2.41.0
next reply other threads:[~2023-08-03 17:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-08-03 17:12 Paolo Abeni [this message]
2023-08-03 17:12 ` [PATCH RFC 1/3] security: introduce and use call_int_hook_ignore_default() Paolo Abeni
2023-08-03 17:12 ` [PATCH RFC 2/3] security: two more call_int_hook_ignore_default use-cases Paolo Abeni
2023-08-03 17:12 ` [PATCH RFC 3/3] security: " Paolo Abeni
2023-08-07 18:57 ` [PATCH RFC 0/3] security: allow a LSM to specify NO-OP return code Casey Schaufler
2023-08-23 15:06 ` Paolo Abeni
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=cover.1691082677.git.pabeni@redhat.com \
--to=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=omosnace@redhat.com \
--cc=paul@paul-moore.com \
--cc=serge@hallyn.com \
/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).