From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@redhat.com>,
Petr Matousek <pmatouse@redhat.com>, Kay Sievers <kay@redhat.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
Subject: Re: setting up CDB filters in udev (was Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] block: add queue-private command filter, editable via sysfs)
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2012 15:49:02 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5093DD5E.6030808@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20121031212241.GZ2945@htj.dyndns.org>
Il 31/10/2012 22:22, Tejun Heo ha scritto:
> Hello, Paolo.
>
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 02:35:20PM -0400, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> Disabling filters if opened by root and tranfering via SCM_RIGHTS
>>> would be the simplest interface-wise (there's no new interface at
>>> all). Would that be too dangerous security-wise?
>>
>> That would be a change with respect to what we have now. After
>> transferring a root-opened (better: CAP_SYS_RAWIO-opened) file
>> descriptor to an unprivileged process your SG_IO commands get
>> filtered. So a ioctl is needed if you want to rely on SCM_RIGHTS.
>
> Yeah, I get that it's a behavior change, but would that be a problem?
Worse, it's a potential security hole because previously you'd get
filtering and now you wouldn't.
Considering that SCM_RIGHTS is usually used to transfer a file
descriptor from a privileged process to an unprivileged one, I'd be very
worried of that.
>>> I guess I just feel quite reluctant to expose another rather obscure
>>> userland configurable in-kernel filter and at the same time I'm not
>>> sure whether this is flexible enough. What if a device is shared by
>>> multiple virtual machines which are trusted at different levels?
>>
>> No, you just don't do that. If a device is passed through to virtual
>> machines, it is between similar virtual machines (for some definition
>> of similar). The only case where you have this sharing is in practice
>> if either the device is read-only (my patch does give you a basic
>> two-level filtering, with two separate bitmaps for RO and RW) or if you
>> allow persistent reservations (which is as close to full trust as you
>> can get).
>
> What disturbs me is that it's a completely new interface to userland
> and at the same a very limited one at that. So, yeah, it's
> bothersome. I personally would prefer SCM_RIGHTS behavior change +
> hard coded filters per device class.
I think hard-coded filters are bad (I prefer to move policy to
userspace), and SCM_RIGHTS without a ioctl is out of question, really.
> But, I'd really like to hear what other guys are thinking. Jens?
> Jens? Jens? Jens? Jens? Jens? Jens? Jens? Jens? Jens? Jens? Jens? :P
:P
Paolo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-11-02 14:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-09-25 15:30 [PATCH v2 0/3] block: add queue-private command filter, editable via sysfs Paolo Bonzini
2012-09-25 15:30 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] block: add back queue-private command filter Paolo Bonzini
2012-09-25 15:30 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] scsi: create an all-zero filter for scanners Paolo Bonzini
2012-09-25 15:30 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] block: add back command filter modification via sysfs Paolo Bonzini
2012-10-04 10:12 ` [PATCH v2 0/3] block: add queue-private command filter, editable " Paolo Bonzini
2012-10-19 0:22 ` Tejun Heo
2012-10-19 9:07 ` Paolo Bonzini
[not found] ` <2007908429.13363375.1350637872646.JavaMail.root@redhat.com>
[not found] ` <20121019201058.GP13370@google.com>
[not found] ` <5087E093.50700@redhat.com>
[not found] ` <CAOS58YM5ZO9h0XUCNxV+6U3UzpeUen5ZuyqsNEUaJ81ux=QKvw@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <5088EC43.2010600@redhat.com>
2012-10-25 18:00 ` setting up CDB filters in udev (was Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] block: add queue-private command filter, editable via sysfs) Tejun Heo
2012-10-25 18:35 ` Paolo Bonzini
2012-10-31 12:52 ` Paolo Bonzini
2012-10-31 21:22 ` Tejun Heo
2012-11-02 14:49 ` Paolo Bonzini [this message]
2012-11-02 15:35 ` Alan Cox
2012-11-02 16:48 ` Tejun Heo
2012-11-02 17:21 ` Alan Cox
2012-11-02 17:30 ` Tejun Heo
2012-11-02 20:18 ` Alan Cox
2012-11-02 20:21 ` Tejun Heo
2012-11-02 20:48 ` Alan Cox
2012-11-02 22:59 ` Tejun Heo
2012-11-02 23:52 ` Alan Cox
2012-11-02 23:58 ` Tejun Heo
2012-11-03 0:19 ` Alan Cox
2012-11-03 0:23 ` Tejun Heo
2012-11-03 0:52 ` Alan Cox
2012-11-02 16:51 ` Tejun Heo
2012-11-02 17:49 ` Paolo Bonzini
2012-11-02 17:53 ` Tejun Heo
2012-11-03 13:20 ` Paolo Bonzini
2012-11-03 14:50 ` Alan Cox
2012-11-05 11:08 ` Paolo Bonzini
2012-11-05 18:18 ` Tejun Heo
2012-11-05 20:12 ` Alan Cox
2012-11-05 20:09 ` Tejun Heo
2012-11-05 20:17 ` Alan Cox
2012-11-05 20:15 ` Tejun Heo
2012-11-05 18:26 ` Tejun Heo
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=5093DD5E.6030808@redhat.com \
--to=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=kay@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pmatouse@redhat.com \
--cc=rwheeler@redhat.com \
--cc=tj@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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).