[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAG48ez1FN0B05r35c-EDuQNoW=5ZTy1iBzksbkt+toqs+_tdqg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2020 21:49:57 +0100
From: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
To: Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>
Cc: kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, Jann Horn <jann@...jh.net>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Mickaël Salaün <mickael.salaun@....gouv.fr>,
"Serge E . Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Vincent Dagonneau <vincent.dagonneau@....gouv.fr>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v14 01/10] landlock: Add object and rule management
On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 5:05 PM Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net> wrote:
> A Landlock object enables to identify a kernel object (e.g. an inode).
> A Landlock rule is a set of access rights allowed on an object. Rules
> are grouped in rulesets that may be tied to a set of processes (i.e.
> subjects) to enforce a scoped access-control (i.e. a domain).
>
> Because Landlock's goal is to empower any process (especially
> unprivileged ones) to sandbox themselves, we can't rely on a system-wide
> object identification such as file extended attributes. Indeed, we need
> innocuous, composable and modular access-controls.
>
> The main challenge with this constraints is to identify kernel objects
> while this identification is useful (i.e. when a security policy makes
> use of this object). But this identification data should be freed once
> no policy is using it. This ephemeral tagging should not and may not be
> written in the filesystem. We then need to manage the lifetime of a
> rule according to the lifetime of its object. To avoid a global lock,
> this implementation make use of RCU and counters to safely reference
> objects.
>
> A following commit uses this generic object management for inodes.
[...]
> diff --git a/security/landlock/Kconfig b/security/landlock/Kconfig
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..4a321d5b3f67
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/security/landlock/Kconfig
> @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
> +
> +config SECURITY_LANDLOCK
> + bool "Landlock support"
> + depends on SECURITY
> + default n
(I think "default n" is implicit?)
> + help
> + This selects Landlock, a safe sandboxing mechanism. It enables to
> + restrict processes on the fly (i.e. enforce an access control policy),
> + which can complement seccomp-bpf. The security policy is a set of access
> + rights tied to an object, which could be a file, a socket or a process.
> +
> + See Documentation/security/landlock/ for further information.
> +
> + If you are unsure how to answer this question, answer N.
[...]
> diff --git a/security/landlock/object.c b/security/landlock/object.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..38fbbb108120
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/security/landlock/object.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,339 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
> +/*
> + * Landlock LSM - Object and rule management
> + *
> + * Copyright © 2016-2020 Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>
> + * Copyright © 2018-2020 ANSSI
> + *
> + * Principles and constraints of the object and rule management:
> + * - Do not leak memory.
> + * - Try as much as possible to free a memory allocation as soon as it is
> + * unused.
> + * - Do not use global lock.
> + * - Do not charge processes other than the one requesting a Landlock
> + * operation.
> + */
> +
> +#include <linux/bug.h>
> +#include <linux/compiler.h>
> +#include <linux/compiler_types.h>
> +#include <linux/err.h>
> +#include <linux/errno.h>
> +#include <linux/fs.h>
> +#include <linux/kernel.h>
> +#include <linux/list.h>
> +#include <linux/rbtree.h>
> +#include <linux/rcupdate.h>
> +#include <linux/refcount.h>
> +#include <linux/slab.h>
> +#include <linux/spinlock.h>
> +#include <linux/workqueue.h>
> +
> +#include "object.h"
> +
> +struct landlock_object *landlock_create_object(
> + const enum landlock_object_type type, void *underlying_object)
> +{
> + struct landlock_object *object;
> +
> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!underlying_object))
> + return NULL;
> + object = kzalloc(sizeof(*object), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!object)
> + return NULL;
> + refcount_set(&object->usage, 1);
> + refcount_set(&object->cleaners, 1);
> + spin_lock_init(&object->lock);
> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&object->rules);
> + object->type = type;
> + WRITE_ONCE(object->underlying_object, underlying_object);
`object` is not globally visible at this point, so WRITE_ONCE() is unnecessary.
> + return object;
> +}
> +
> +struct landlock_object *landlock_get_object(struct landlock_object *object)
> + __acquires(object->usage)
> +{
> + __acquire(object->usage);
> + /*
> + * If @object->usage equal 0, then it will be ignored by writers, and
> + * underlying_object->object may be replaced, but this is not an issue
> + * for release_object().
> + */
> + if (object && refcount_inc_not_zero(&object->usage)) {
> + /*
> + * It should not be possible to get a reference to an object if
> + * its underlying object is being terminated (e.g. with
> + * landlock_release_object()), because an object is only
> + * modifiable through such underlying object. This is not the
> + * case with landlock_get_object_cleaner().
> + */
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(!READ_ONCE(object->underlying_object));
> + return object;
> + }
> + return NULL;
> +}
> +
> +static struct landlock_object *get_object_cleaner(
> + struct landlock_object *object)
> + __acquires(object->cleaners)
> +{
> + __acquire(object->cleaners);
> + if (object && refcount_inc_not_zero(&object->cleaners))
> + return object;
> + return NULL;
> +}
I don't get this whole "cleaners" thing. Can you give a quick
description of why this is necessary, and what benefits it has over a
standard refcounting+RCU scheme? I don't immediately see anything that
requires this.
> +/*
> + * There is two cases when an object should be free and the reference to the
> + * underlying object should be put:
> + * - when the last rule tied to this object is removed, which is handled by
> + * landlock_put_rule() and then release_object();
> + * - when the object is being terminated (e.g. no more reference to an inode),
> + * which is handled by landlock_put_object().
> + */
> +static void put_object_free(struct landlock_object *object)
> + __releases(object->cleaners)
> +{
> + __release(object->cleaners);
> + if (!refcount_dec_and_test(&object->cleaners))
> + return;
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(refcount_read(&object->usage));
> + /*
> + * Ensures a safe use of @object in the RCU block from
> + * landlock_put_rule().
> + */
> + kfree_rcu(object, rcu_free);
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * Destroys a newly created and useless object.
> + */
> +void landlock_drop_object(struct landlock_object *object)
> +{
> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!refcount_dec_and_test(&object->usage)))
> + return;
> + __acquire(object->cleaners);
> + put_object_free(object);
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * Puts the underlying object (e.g. inode) if it is the first request to
> + * release @object, without calling landlock_put_object().
> + *
> + * Return true if this call effectively marks @object as released, false
> + * otherwise.
> + */
> +static bool release_object(struct landlock_object *object)
> + __releases(&object->lock)
> +{
> + void *underlying_object;
> +
> + lockdep_assert_held(&object->lock);
> +
> + underlying_object = xchg(&object->underlying_object, NULL);
> + spin_unlock(&object->lock);
> + might_sleep();
> + if (!underlying_object)
> + return false;
> +
> + switch (object->type) {
> + case LANDLOCK_OBJECT_INODE:
> + break;
> + default:
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
> + }
> + return true;
> +}
> +
> +static void put_object_cleaner(struct landlock_object *object)
> + __releases(object->cleaners)
> +{
> + /* Let's try an early lockless check. */
> + if (list_empty(&object->rules) &&
> + READ_ONCE(object->underlying_object)) {
> + /*
> + * Puts @object if there is no rule tied to it and the
> + * remaining user is the underlying object. This check is
> + * atomic because @object->rules and @object->underlying_object
> + * are protected by @object->lock.
> + */
> + spin_lock(&object->lock);
> + if (list_empty(&object->rules) &&
> + READ_ONCE(object->underlying_object) &&
> + refcount_dec_if_one(&object->usage)) {
> + /*
> + * Releases @object, in place of
> + * landlock_release_object().
> + *
> + * @object is already empty, implying that all its
> + * previous rules are already disabled.
> + *
> + * Unbalance the @object->cleaners counter to reflect
> + * the underlying object release.
> + */
> + if (!WARN_ON_ONCE(!release_object(object))) {
> + __acquire(object->cleaners);
> + put_object_free(object);
> + }
> + } else {
> + spin_unlock(&object->lock);
> + }
> + }
> + put_object_free(object);
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * Putting an object is easy when the object is being terminated, but it is
> + * much more tricky when the reason is that there is no more rule tied to this
> + * object. Indeed, new rules could be added at the same time.
> + */
> +void landlock_put_object(struct landlock_object *object)
> + __releases(object->usage)
> +{
> + struct landlock_object *object_cleaner;
> +
> + __release(object->usage);
> + might_sleep();
> + if (!object)
> + return;
> + /*
> + * Guards against concurrent termination to be able to terminate
> + * @object if it is empty and not referenced by another rule-appender
> + * other than the underlying object.
> + */
> + object_cleaner = get_object_cleaner(object);
> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!object_cleaner)) {
> + __release(object->cleaners);
> + return;
> + }
> + /*
> + * Decrements @object->usage and if it reach zero, also decrement
> + * @object->cleaners. If both reach zero, then release and free
> + * @object.
> + */
> + if (refcount_dec_and_test(&object->usage)) {
> + struct landlock_rule *rule_walker, *rule_walker2;
> +
> + spin_lock(&object->lock);
> + /*
> + * Disables all the rules tied to @object when it is forbidden
> + * to add new rule but still allowed to remove them with
> + * landlock_put_rule(). This is crucial to be able to safely
> + * free a rule according to landlock_rule_is_disabled().
> + */
> + list_for_each_entry_safe(rule_walker, rule_walker2,
> + &object->rules, list)
> + list_del_rcu(&rule_walker->list);
> +
> + /*
> + * Releases @object if it is not already released (e.g. with
> + * landlock_release_object()).
> + */
> + release_object(object);
> + /*
> + * Unbalances the @object->cleaners counter to reflect the
> + * underlying object release.
> + */
> + __acquire(object->cleaners);
> + put_object_free(object);
> + }
> + put_object_cleaner(object_cleaner);
> +}
> +
> +void landlock_put_rule(struct landlock_object *object,
> + struct landlock_rule *rule)
> +{
> + if (!rule)
> + return;
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(!object);
> + /*
> + * Guards against a concurrent @object self-destruction with
> + * landlock_put_object() or put_object_cleaner().
> + */
> + rcu_read_lock();
> + if (landlock_rule_is_disabled(rule)) {
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> + if (refcount_dec_and_test(&rule->usage))
> + kfree_rcu(rule, rcu_free);
> + return;
> + }
> + if (refcount_dec_and_test(&rule->usage)) {
> + struct landlock_object *safe_object;
> +
> + /*
> + * Now, @rule may still be enabled, or in the process of being
> + * untied to @object by put_object_cleaner(). However, we know
> + * that @object will not be freed until rcu_read_unlock() and
> + * until @object->cleaners reach zero. Furthermore, we may not
> + * be the only one willing to free a @rule linked with @object.
> + * If we succeed to hold @object with get_object_cleaner(), we
> + * know that until put_object_cleaner(), we can safely use
> + * @object to remove @rule.
> + */
> + safe_object = get_object_cleaner(object);
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> + if (!safe_object) {
> + __release(safe_object->cleaners);
> + /*
> + * We can safely free @rule because it is already
> + * removed from @object's list.
> + */
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(!landlock_rule_is_disabled(rule));
> + kfree_rcu(rule, rcu_free);
> + } else {
> + spin_lock(&safe_object->lock);
> + if (!landlock_rule_is_disabled(rule))
> + list_del(&rule->list);
> + spin_unlock(&safe_object->lock);
> + kfree_rcu(rule, rcu_free);
> + put_object_cleaner(safe_object);
> + }
> + } else {
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> + }
> + /*
> + * put_object_cleaner() might sleep, but it is only reachable if
> + * !landlock_rule_is_disabled(). Therefore, clean_ref() can not sleep.
> + */
> + might_sleep();
> +}
> +
> +void landlock_release_object(struct landlock_object __rcu *rcu_object)
> +{
> + struct landlock_object *object;
> +
> + if (!rcu_object)
> + return;
> + rcu_read_lock();
> + object = get_object_cleaner(rcu_dereference(rcu_object));
This is not how RCU works. You need the rcu annotation on the access
to the data structure member (or global variable) that's actually
being accessed. A "struct foo __rcu *foo" argument is essentially
always wrong.
> +struct landlock_rule {
> + struct landlock_access access;
> + /*
> + * @list: Linked list with other rules tied to the same object, which
> + * enable to manage their lifetimes. This is also used to identify if
> + * a rule is still valid, thanks to landlock_rule_is_disabled(), which
> + * is important in the matching process because the original object
> + * address might have been recycled.
> + */
> + struct list_head list;
> + union {
> + /*
> + * @usage: Number of rulesets pointing to this rule. This
> + * field is never used by RCU readers.
> + */
> + refcount_t usage;
> + struct rcu_head rcu_free;
> + };
> +};
An object that is subject to RCU but whose refcount must not be
accessed from RCU context? That seems a weird.
> +enum landlock_object_type {
> + LANDLOCK_OBJECT_INODE = 1,
> +};
> +
> +struct landlock_object {
> + /*
> + * @usage: Main usage counter, used to tie an object to it's underlying
> + * object (i.e. create a lifetime) and potentially add new rules.
I can't really follow this by reading this patch on its own. As one
suggestion to make things at least a bit better, how about documenting
here that `usage` always reaches zero before `cleaners` does?
> + */
> + refcount_t usage;
> + /*
> + * @cleaners: Usage counter used to free a rule from @rules (thanks to
> + * put_rule()). Enables to get a reference to this object until it
> + * really become freed. Cf. put_object().
Maybe add: @usage being non-zero counts as one reference to @cleaners.
Once @cleaners has become zero, the object is freed after an RCU grace
period.
> + */
> + refcount_t cleaners;
> + union {
> + /*
> + * The use of this struct is controlled by @usage and
> + * @cleaners, which makes it safe to union it with @rcu_free.
> + */
[...]
> + struct rcu_head rcu_free;
> + };
> +};
[...]
> +static inline bool landlock_rule_is_disabled(
> + struct landlock_rule *rule)
> +{
> + /*
> + * Disabling (i.e. unlinking) a landlock_rule is a one-way operation.
> + * It is not possible to re-enable such a rule, then there is no need
> + * for smp_load_acquire().
> + *
> + * LIST_POISON2 is set by list_del() and list_del_rcu().
> + */
> + return !rule || READ_ONCE(rule->list.prev) == LIST_POISON2;
You're not allowed to do this, the comment above list_del() states:
* Note: list_empty() on entry does not return true after this, the entry is
* in an undefined state.
If you want to be able to test whether the element is on a list
afterwards, use stuff like list_del_init().
> +}
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
