From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To: Paul Moore <pmoore@redhat.com>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
selinux@tycho.nsa.gov, jasowang@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/3] tun: fix LSM/SELinux labeling of tun/tap devices
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 18:12:00 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121206161200.GA4340@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7448004.siKCIqQqTi@sifl>
On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 10:46:11AM -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Thursday, December 06, 2012 12:33:25 PM Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 03:26:19PM -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > This patch corrects some problems with LSM/SELinux that were introduced
> > > with the multiqueue patchset. The problem stems from the fact that the
> > > multiqueue work changed the relationship between the tun device and its
> > > associated socket; before the socket persisted for the life of the
> > > device, however after the multiqueue changes the socket only persisted
> > > for the life of the userspace connection (fd open). For non-persistent
> > > devices this is not an issue, but for persistent devices this can cause
> > > the tun device to lose its SELinux label.
> > >
> > > We correct this problem by adding an opaque LSM security blob to the
> > > tun device struct which allows us to have the LSM security state, e.g.
> > > SELinux labeling information, persist for the lifetime of the tun
> > > device. In the process we tweak the LSM hooks to work with this new
> > > approach to TUN device/socket labeling and introduce a new LSM hook,
> > > security_tun_dev_create_queue(), to approve requests to create a new
> > > TUN queue via TUNSETQUEUE.
> > >
> > > The SELinux code has been adjusted to match the new LSM hooks, the
> > > other LSMs do not make use of the LSM TUN controls. This patch makes
> > > use of the recently added "tun_socket:create_queue" permission to
> > > restrict access to the TUNSETQUEUE operation. On older SELinux
> > > policies which do not define the "tun_socket:create_queue" permission
> > > the access control decision for TUNSETQUEUE will be handled according
> > > to the SELinux policy's unknown permission setting.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Paul Moore <pmoore@redhat.com>
> >
> > OK so just to verify: this can be used to ensure that qemu
> > process that has the queue fd can only attach it to
> > a specific device, right?
>
> Whenever a new queue is created via TUNSETQUEUE/tun_set_queue() the
> security_tun_dev_create_queue() LSM hook is called. When SELinux is enabled
> this hook ends up calling selinux_tun_dev_create_queue() which checks that the
> calling process (process_t) is allowed to create a new queue on the specified
> device (tundev_t) . If you are familiar with SELinux security policy, the
> allow rule would look like this:
>
> allow process_t tundev_t:tun_socket create_queue;
>
> In practice, if we assume libvirt is creating the TUN device and running with
> a SELinux label of virtd_t and that QEMU instances are running with a SELinux
> label of svirt_t then the allow rule would look like this:
>
> allow svirt_t virtd_t:tun_socket create_queue;
>
> There is also the matter of the MLS/MCS constraints providing additional
> separation but that is another level of detail which I don't believe is
> important for our discussion.
Hmm. How do the rules for SETIFF look ATM?
I am just checking default policy does not let qemu do with
SETQUEUE something with a device which it can not
attach to using SETIFF.
> --
> paul moore
> security and virtualization @ redhat
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-12-06 16:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-12-05 20:25 [RFC PATCH v2 0/3] Fix some multiqueue TUN problems Paul Moore
2012-12-05 20:26 ` [RFC PATCH v2 1/3] tun: correctly report an error in tun_flow_init() Paul Moore
2012-12-06 10:31 ` Jason Wang
2012-12-06 15:46 ` Paul Moore
2012-12-05 20:26 ` [RFC PATCH v2 2/3] selinux: add the "create_queue" permission to the "tun_socket" class Paul Moore
2012-12-05 20:26 ` [RFC PATCH v2 3/3] tun: fix LSM/SELinux labeling of tun/tap devices Paul Moore
2012-12-06 10:29 ` Jason Wang
2012-12-06 15:36 ` Paul Moore
2012-12-07 5:29 ` Jason Wang
2012-12-06 10:33 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2012-12-06 13:51 ` Jason Wang
2012-12-06 14:12 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2012-12-06 15:46 ` Paul Moore
2012-12-06 16:12 ` Michael S. Tsirkin [this message]
2012-12-06 16:56 ` Paul Moore
2012-12-06 20:57 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2012-12-06 21:09 ` Paul Moore
2012-12-07 12:25 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2012-12-10 17:04 ` Paul Moore
2012-12-10 17:26 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2012-12-10 17:33 ` Paul Moore
2012-12-10 17:50 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2012-12-10 18:42 ` Eric Paris
2012-12-10 22:21 ` Paul Moore
2012-12-10 22:43 ` Paul Moore
2012-12-11 6:41 ` Jason Wang
2012-12-12 9:10 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2012-12-07 5:41 ` Jason Wang
2012-12-12 9:22 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2012-12-12 18:49 ` Paul Moore
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=20121206161200.GA4340@redhat.com \
--to=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=jasowang@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pmoore@redhat.com \
--cc=selinux@tycho.nsa.gov \
/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).