From: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Cc: Paul Moore <pmoore@redhat.com>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
selinux@tycho.nsa.gov
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 2/2] tun: fix LSM/SELinux labeling of tun/tap devices
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 13:46:25 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <50D154B1.4010909@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20121218230808.GC1135@redhat.com>
On 12/19/2012 07:08 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 05:53:52PM -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_attach_queue(), to approve requests to attach to a
>> 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:attach_queue" permission to
>> restrict access to the TUNSETQUEUE operation. On older SELinux
>> policies which do not define the "tun_socket:attach_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>
>
> Looks good to me. A comment not directly related to this patch, below.
Good to me too, will do some test on this.
>
>> ---
>> drivers/net/tun.c | 27 +++++++++++++----
>> include/linux/security.h | 59 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
>> security/capability.c | 24 +++++++++++++--
>> security/security.c | 28 ++++++++++++++----
>> security/selinux/hooks.c | 50 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>> security/selinux/include/objsec.h | 4 +++
>> 6 files changed, 154 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/tun.c b/drivers/net/tun.c
>> index 504f7f1..4b7754c 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/tun.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/tun.c
>> @@ -186,6 +186,7 @@ struct tun_struct {
>> unsigned long ageing_time;
>> unsigned int numdisabled;
>> struct list_head disabled;
>> + void *security;
>> };
>>
[...]
>>
>> @@ -1805,12 +1813,18 @@ static int tun_set_queue(struct file *file, struct ifreq *ifr)
>>
>> if (ifr->ifr_flags & IFF_ATTACH_QUEUE) {
>> tun = tfile->detached;
>> - if (!tun)
>> + if (!tun) {
>> ret = -EINVAL;
>> - else if (tun_not_capable(tun))
>> + goto unlock;
>> + }
>> + if (tun_not_capable(tun)) {
> By the way I don't think we need to limit set_queue
> by tun_not_capable. It simply makes a queue active/inactive
> which seems harmless. Jason?
Maybe we should keep this, when a tun has a owner it would not expected
any other user except the one has CAP_NET_ADMIN to active or de-active a
queue.
>
>> ret = -EPERM;
>> - else
[...]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-12-19 5:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-12-18 22:53 [RFC PATCH v3 0/2] Fix some multiqueue TUN problems Paul Moore
2012-12-18 22:53 ` [RFC PATCH v3 1/2] selinux: add the "attach_queue" permission to the "tun_socket" class Paul Moore
2012-12-18 22:53 ` [RFC PATCH v3 2/2] tun: fix LSM/SELinux labeling of tun/tap devices Paul Moore
2012-12-18 23:08 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2012-12-19 5:46 ` Jason Wang [this message]
2012-12-19 16:58 ` Paul Moore
2012-12-20 21:58 ` Eric Paris
2012-12-19 16:59 ` [RFC PATCH v3 0/2] Fix some multiqueue TUN problems 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=50D154B1.4010909@redhat.com \
--to=jasowang@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mst@redhat.com \
--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).