From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20F14C11F67 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 20:28:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B62161DA6 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 20:28:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S235468AbhF2UbC (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jun 2021 16:31:02 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.133.124]:30518 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S235499AbhF2Ua5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jun 2021 16:30:57 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1624998509; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=Qe7cO7mpeKYSPAW3JclQzTAT82wV6nS1Y2KDeR28ebA=; b=Qwkj2ZCOJ9C3FlX17w6FQxH4NS6a9XZaXzmCMg8HMEjdANYUPIMPsTWuPuU4dOB5MVY1qc xQqSHfZg628qBS7mQEIx93kF2XwmpyCq4SfQIqz5I9I16G6ARIxBaoLMjK1j3smCQq1c/K nJkuHODB0I/sWK1g3NONzfjvJ4G7Paw= Received: from mail-qk1-f198.google.com (mail-qk1-f198.google.com [209.85.222.198]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-396-mYsqUqx7NharPmrgsbixCA-1; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 16:28:28 -0400 X-MC-Unique: mYsqUqx7NharPmrgsbixCA-1 Received: by mail-qk1-f198.google.com with SMTP id x12-20020a05620a448cb02903b3dabbe857so5386qkp.15 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 13:28:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:reply-to:subject:to:cc:references:from :organization:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=Qe7cO7mpeKYSPAW3JclQzTAT82wV6nS1Y2KDeR28ebA=; b=tJob/PljSE9+LhR/sXtDW1qSJh16YQg4SvqKqZkFefrt0Xi4aV3ePZvp0uBD92G+Ke zfsaP7E/bS0MxhSCbVNwsjhwCBPpfDQFuqqAGUQKcZJ24JW/0DoxSoOWnRwsR8Eix7jx /+bZnyDBocOAGZkWft/q6AXm9R2FrXdvwOvVWsa59GrHh6YH9uYtMsCn+ZKWa9JxF3Kg 2J2i2lcp1xv9jjPcZgWSaIwe4nKHyu+TFIVT0EJjN7BkR9JlJBmVeqDF3vjPgVxShhTk 83WT3JNxnxojTnlXe6fpvoKHBHoRKHGu1FsboULTjoWDkmH7Xryf2o97lSIHDxdw8wHU CbVA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530//5dwsByClBNuBGgQj5ogl350xAVSntHyekc3iZskea6gtBgz tRV+dcAKJsXTm+ELT4EpDZedpr6buPho8GVz3jxWLpP4Mqf5iay3zcg47bLFNiXwVrWf0VWqlWg i9/9SlMT9fB55vbkC5OVg/uwaFlHFlY7Bc13c X-Received: by 2002:a37:5646:: with SMTP id k67mr32407686qkb.333.1624998507521; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 13:28:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy+y8RUwhLqAwixJVYSR0nEBkuaoQfKDwogR7bN19ijIyOgKyo2J6TkvVQredHzeCKP9yFU8A== X-Received: by 2002:a37:5646:: with SMTP id k67mr32407667qkb.333.1624998507292; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 13:28:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain (cpe-74-65-150-180.maine.res.rr.com. [74.65.150.180]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k19sm8094710qta.90.2021.06.29.13.28.25 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 29 Jun 2021 13:28:26 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: dwalsh@redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] xattr: Allow user.* xattr on symlink/special files if caller has CAP_SYS_RESOURCE To: Vivek Goyal , Casey Schaufler Cc: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" , "Schaufler, Casey" , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk" , "virtio-fs@redhat.com" , "berrange@redhat.com" , linux-security-module , "selinux@vger.kernel.org" References: <20210628131708.GA1803896@redhat.com> <1b446468-dcf8-9e21-58d3-c032686eeee5@redhat.com> <5d8f033c-eba2-7a8b-f19a-1005bbb615ea@schaufler-ca.com> <20210629152007.GC5231@redhat.com> <78663f5c-d2fd-747a-48e3-0c5fd8b40332@schaufler-ca.com> <20210629173530.GD5231@redhat.com> From: Daniel Walsh Organization: Red Hat Message-ID: Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 16:28:24 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210629173530.GD5231@redhat.com> Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=dwalsh@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US Precedence: bulk List-ID: On 6/29/21 13:35, Vivek Goyal wrote: > On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 09:13:48AM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote: >> On 6/29/2021 8:20 AM, Vivek Goyal wrote: >>> On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 07:38:15AM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote: >>> >>> [..] >>>>>>>> User xattrs are less protected than security xattrs. You are exposing the >>>>>>>> security xattrs on the guest to the possible whims of a malicious, unprivileged >>>>>>>> actor on the host. All it needs is the right UID. >>>>>>> Yep, we realise that; but when you're mainly interested in making sure >>>>>>> the guest can't attack the host, that's less worrying. >>>>>> That's uncomfortable. >>>>> Why exactly? >>>> If a mechanism is designed with a known vulnerability you >>>> fail your validation/evaluation efforts. >>> We are working with the constraint that shared directory should not be >>> accessible to unpriviliged users on host. And with that constraint, what >>> you are referring to is not a vulnerability. >> Sure, that's quite reasonable for your use case. It doesn't mean >> that the vulnerability doesn't exist, it means you've mitigated it. >> >> >>>> Your mechanism is >>>> less general because other potential use cases may not be >>>> as cavalier about the vulnerability. >>> Prefixing xattrs with "user.virtiofsd" is just one of the options. >>> virtiofsd has the capability to prefix "trusted.virtiofsd" as well. >>> We have not chosen that because we don't want to give it CAP_SYS_ADMIN. >>> >>> So other use cases which don't like prefixing "user.virtiofsd", can >>> give CAP_SYS_ADMIN and work with it. >>> >>>> I think that you can >>>> approach this differently, get a solution that does everything >>>> you want, and avoid the known problem. >>> What's the solution? Are you referring to using "trusted.*" instead? But >>> that has its own problem of giving CAP_SYS_ADMIN to virtiofsd. >> I'm coming to the conclusion that xattr namespaces, analogous >> to user namespaces, are the correct solution. They generalize >> for multiple filesystem and LSM use cases. The use of namespaces >> is well understood, especially in the container community. It >> looks to me as if it would address your use case swimmingly. > Even if xattrs were namespaced, I am not sure it solves the issue > of unpriviliged UID being able to modify security xattrs of file. > If it happens to be correct UID, it should be able to spin up a > user namespace and modify namespaced xattrs? > > Anyway, once namespaced xattrs are available, I will gladly make use > of it. But that probably should not be a blocker for this patch. > > Vivek > All this conversation is great, and I look forward to a better solution, but if we go back to the patch, it was to fix an issue where the kernel is requiring CAP_SYS_ADMIN for writing user Xattrs on link files and other special files. The documented reason for this is to prevent the users from using XATTRS to avoid quota. The CAP_SYS_RESOURCE capability is denfined to allow processes with this capability to ignore quota. This PR allows processes with CAP_SYS_RESOURCE to create user Xattrs. To me this makes sense. Is there any argument against this?