Re: What do LSMs *actually* need for checks on notifications?

Casey Schaufler
2019-06-11T16:22:59Z

On 6/11/2019 7:21 AM, David Howells wrote:
> To see if we can try and make progress on this, can we try and come at this
> from another angle: what do LSMs *actually* need to do this? And I grant that
> each LSM might require different things.
>
> -~-
>
> [A] There are a bunch of things available, some of which may be coincident,
> depending on the context:
>
> (1) The creds of the process that created a watch_queue (ie. opened
> /dev/watch_queue).

Smack needs this for the filesystem access required to open /dev/watch_queue.

> (2) The creds of the process that set a watch (ie. called watch_sb,
> KEYCTL_NOTIFY, ...);

Smack needs this to set a watch on any named object (file, key, ...).
Smack needs this as the object information for event delivery.

> (3) The creds of the process that tripped the event (which might be the
> system).

Smack needs this as the subject information for the event delivery.

> (4) The security attributes of the object on which the watch was set (uid,
> gid, mode, labels).

Smack needs this to set a watch on the named object (file, key, ...).
I am going to say that if you can't access an object you can't watch it.
I think that read access is sufficient provided that no one else can
see what watches I've created.

> (5) The security attributes of the object on which the event was tripped.

Smack does not need these for the event mechanism as that object isn't
involved in the event delivery, except as may be required by (4).

> (6) The security attributes of all the objects between the object in (5) and
> the object in (4), assuming we work from (5) towards (4) if the two
> aren't coincident (WATCH_INFO_RECURSIVE).

Smack needs these only as they would apply to (4).

> At the moment, when post_one_notification() wants to write a notification into
> a queue, it calls security_post_notification() to ask if it should be allowed
> to do so. This is passed (1) and (3) above plus the notification record.

Is "current" (2)? Smack needs (2) for the event delivery access check.

> [B] There are a number of places I can usefully potentially add hooks:
>
> (a) The point at which a watch queue is created (ie. /dev/watch_queue is
> opened).

Smack would not need a new check as the filesystem checks should suffice.

> (b) The point at which a watch is set (ie. watch_sb).

Smack would need a check to ensure the watcher has access
in cases where what is being watched is an object.

> (c) The point at which a notification is generated (ie. an automount point is
> tripped).

Smack does not require an explicit check here.

> (d) The point at which a notification is delivered (ie. we write the message
> into the queue).

Smack requires a check here. (2) as the object and (3) as the subject.

> (e) All the points at which we walk over an object in a chain from (c) to
> find the watch on which we can effect (d) (eg. we walk rootwards from a
> mountpoint to find watches on a branch in the mount topology).

Smack does not require anything beyond existing checks.

> [C] Problems that need to be resolved:
>
> (x) Do I need to put a security pointer in struct watch for the active LSM to
> fill in? If so, I presume this would need passing to
> security_post_notification().

Smack does not need this.

> (y) What checks should be done on object destruction after final put and what
> contexts need to be supplied?

Classically there is no such thing as filesystem object deletion.
By making it possible to set a watch on that you've inadvertently
added a security relevant action to the security model. :o

> This one is made all the harder because the creds that are in force when
> close(), exit(), exec(), dup2(), etc. close a file descriptor might need
> to be propagated to deferred-fput, which must in turn propagate them to
> af_unix-cleanup, and thence back to deferred-fput and thence to implicit
> unmount (dissolve_on_fput()[*]).
>
> [*] Though it should be noted that if this happens, the subtree cannot be
> attached to the root of a namespace.
>
> Further, if several processes are sharing a file object, it's not
> predictable as to which process the final notification will come from.

How about we don't add filesystem object deletion to the security model?

If what you really care about is removal of last filesystem reference
(last unlink) this shouldn't be any harder than any other watched change
(e.g. chmod) to the object.

If, on the other hand, you really want to watch for the last inode
reference and actual destruction of the thing I will suggest an
argument based on the model itself. If all of the directory entries
are unlinked the object no longer exists in the filesystem namespace.
If all of the fd's are closed (by whatever mechanism, we don't really
care) it no longer exists in any process space. At that point it has
no names, and is no longer a named object. No process (subject) deletes
it. They can't. They don't have access to it without a name. The
deletion is a system event, like setting the clock. There is no policy
that says when or even if the destruction occurs.

If and when the system gets around to cleaning up what has become
nothing more than system resources any outstanding watches can be
triggered using the system credential.

> (z) Do intermediate objects, say in a mount topology notification, actually
> need to be checked against the watcher's creds? For a mount topology
> notification, would this require calling inode_permission() for each
> intervening directory?

Smack would not require this. Paths are an illusion.

> Doing that might be impractical as it would probably have to be done
> outside of of the RCU read lock and the filesystem ->permission() hooks
> might want to sleep (to touch disk or talk to a server).
>
> David