From: Pablo Neira <pablo@eurodev.net>
To: Chris Wright <chrisw@osdl.org>
Cc: netdev@oss.sgi.com, davem@davemloft.net, jmorris@redhat.com,
sds@epoch.ncsc.mil, serue@us.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/3] netlink check sender, audit
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 03:36:50 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <42116042.6030205@eurodev.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <42115E7E.6050909@eurodev.net>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1340 bytes --]
Pablo Neira wrote:
> Chris Wright wrote:
>
>>> With your patch, a message from user space process that doesn't have
>>> the capabilites follows this path:
>>>
>>> sys_sendmsg() -> netlink_sendmsg() -> netlink_unicast() ->
>>> netlink_sendskb() = discarded here.
>>>
>>> Currently, it continues, for example in case of rtnetlink:
>>>
>>> ... -> netlink_sendskb() -> sk_data_ready(sk, len) ->
>>> rtnetlink_rcv() -> rtnetlink_rcv_skb() -> rtnetlink_rcv_msg() =
>>> discarded here.
>>>
>>> Nowadays the message is enqueued but it's discarded later. So if I'm
>>> not missing anything, I don't see the point of adding a new function
>>> to check for capabilities/audit stuff just a bit before.
>>>
>>
>>
>> The purpose is to guarantee that the checks are done in the sender's
>> context to avoid having to cache values such as capabilities, SELinux
>> SID, audit loginuid.
>>
>>
>
> Thanks for the explanation. I don't still like so much the new
> netlink_kernel_create_check function. I think that we could get more
> variations of netlink_kernel_create in future just to add another
> feature/checking. So I prefer new function (netlink_kernel_set_check)
> that set check_sender if it's needed once the netlink socket is
> created. I've modified your patches to use this function.
Sorry, I'm stupid. Wrong patch.
--
Pablo
[-- Attachment #2: netlink.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 2044 bytes --]
===== net/netlink/af_netlink.c 1.69 vs edited =====
--- 1.69/net/netlink/af_netlink.c 2005-01-21 21:25:32 +01:00
+++ edited/net/netlink/af_netlink.c 2005-02-15 03:34:53 +01:00
@@ -71,6 +71,7 @@
struct netlink_callback *cb;
spinlock_t cb_lock;
void (*data_ready)(struct sock *sk, int bytes);
+ int (*check_sender)(struct sk_buff *skb);
};
#define nlk_sk(__sk) ((struct netlink_opt *)(__sk)->sk_protinfo)
@@ -636,9 +637,15 @@
int netlink_sendskb(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb, int protocol)
{
struct netlink_opt *nlk;
- int len = skb->len;
+ int err, len = skb->len;
+ nlk = nlk_sk(sk);
+
+ if (nlk->check_sender)
+ if ((err = nlk->check_sender(skb))) {
+ netlink_detachskb(sk, skb);
+ return err;
+ }
- nlk = nlk_sk(sk);
#ifdef NL_EMULATE_DEV
if (nlk->handler) {
skb_orphan(skb);
@@ -1063,6 +1070,12 @@
return sk;
}
+inline void netlink_kernel_set_check(struct sock *sk,
+ int (*check)(struct sk_buff *skb))
+{
+ nlk_sk(sk)->check_sender = check;
+}
+
void netlink_set_nonroot(int protocol, unsigned int flags)
{
if ((unsigned int)protocol < MAX_LINKS)
@@ -1460,6 +1473,7 @@
EXPORT_SYMBOL(netlink_broadcast);
EXPORT_SYMBOL(netlink_dump_start);
EXPORT_SYMBOL(netlink_kernel_create);
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(netlink_kernel_set_check);
EXPORT_SYMBOL(netlink_register_notifier);
EXPORT_SYMBOL(netlink_set_err);
EXPORT_SYMBOL(netlink_set_nonroot);
===== include/linux/netlink.h 1.23 vs edited =====
--- 1.23/include/linux/netlink.h 2005-02-07 06:59:39 +01:00
+++ edited/include/linux/netlink.h 2005-02-15 02:53:35 +01:00
@@ -117,6 +117,7 @@
extern struct sock *netlink_kernel_create(int unit, void (*input)(struct sock *sk, int len));
+extern inline void netlink_kernel_set_check(struct sock *sk, int (*check)(struct sk_buff *skb));
extern void netlink_ack(struct sk_buff *in_skb, struct nlmsghdr *nlh, int err);
extern int netlink_unicast(struct sock *ssk, struct sk_buff *skb, __u32 pid, int nonblock);
extern int netlink_broadcast(struct sock *ssk, struct sk_buff *skb, __u32 pid,
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-02-15 2:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-02-12 9:01 [RFC][PATCH 0/3] netlink check sender Chris Wright
2005-02-12 9:02 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/3] " Chris Wright
2005-02-12 9:05 ` [RFC][PATCH 2/3] netlink check sender, audit Chris Wright
2005-02-12 9:06 ` [RFC][PATCH 3/3] netlink check sender, rtnetlink Chris Wright
2005-02-12 16:48 ` [RFC][PATCH 2/3] netlink check sender, audit Pablo Neira
2005-02-12 21:41 ` Pablo Neira
2005-02-14 13:08 ` Stephen Smalley
2005-02-15 0:13 ` Chris Wright
2005-02-15 2:29 ` Pablo Neira
2005-02-15 2:36 ` Pablo Neira [this message]
2005-02-15 3:47 ` Chris Wright
2005-02-15 22:19 ` Pablo Neira
2005-02-15 22:22 ` Chris Wright
2005-02-15 22:27 ` Pablo Neira
2005-02-16 0:11 ` Chris Wright
2005-02-16 3:42 ` James Morris
2005-02-15 0:11 ` Chris Wright
2005-02-14 12:59 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/3] netlink check sender Stephen Smalley
2005-02-14 13:05 ` Stephen Smalley
2005-02-15 0:22 ` Chris Wright
2005-02-15 0:17 ` Chris Wright
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=42116042.6030205@eurodev.net \
--to=pablo@eurodev.net \
--cc=chrisw@osdl.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=jmorris@redhat.com \
--cc=netdev@oss.sgi.com \
--cc=sds@epoch.ncsc.mil \
--cc=serue@us.ibm.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).