[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <216c8e89-2906-4ad5-f8a1-ab3ec50614fe@digikod.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 18:01:00 +0100
From: Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>
To: Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>
Cc: 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@...ts.openwall.com, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v14 01/10] landlock: Add object and rule management
On 27/02/2020 05:20, Hillf Danton wrote:
>
> On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 17:02:06 +0100 Mickaël Salaün
>> 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.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>
>> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
>> Cc: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
>> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
>> Cc: Serge E. Hallyn <serge@...lyn.com>
>> ---
>>
>> Changes since v13:
>> * New dedicated implementation, removing the need for eBPF.
>>
>> Previous version:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190721213116.23476-6-mic@digikod.net/
>> ---
>> MAINTAINERS | 10 ++
>> security/Kconfig | 1 +
>> security/Makefile | 2 +
>> security/landlock/Kconfig | 15 ++
>> security/landlock/Makefile | 3 +
>> security/landlock/object.c | 339 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> security/landlock/object.h | 134 +++++++++++++++
>> 7 files changed, 504 insertions(+)
>> create mode 100644 security/landlock/Kconfig
>> create mode 100644 security/landlock/Makefile
>> create mode 100644 security/landlock/object.c
>> create mode 100644 security/landlock/object.h
>>
>> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
>> index fcd79fc38928..206f85768cd9 100644
>> --- a/MAINTAINERS
>> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
>> @@ -9360,6 +9360,16 @@ F: net/core/skmsg.c
>> F: net/core/sock_map.c
>> F: net/ipv4/tcp_bpf.c
>>
>> +LANDLOCK SECURITY MODULE
>> +M: Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>
>> +L: linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
>> +W: https://landlock.io
>> +T: git https://github.com/landlock-lsm/linux.git
>> +S: Supported
>> +F: security/landlock/
>> +K: landlock
>> +K: LANDLOCK
>> +
>> LANTIQ / INTEL Ethernet drivers
>> M: Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@...ke-m.de>
>> L: netdev@...r.kernel.org
>> diff --git a/security/Kconfig b/security/Kconfig
>> index 2a1a2d396228..9d9981394fb0 100644
>> --- a/security/Kconfig
>> +++ b/security/Kconfig
>> @@ -238,6 +238,7 @@ source "security/loadpin/Kconfig"
>> source "security/yama/Kconfig"
>> source "security/safesetid/Kconfig"
>> source "security/lockdown/Kconfig"
>> +source "security/landlock/Kconfig"
>>
>> source "security/integrity/Kconfig"
>>
>> diff --git a/security/Makefile b/security/Makefile
>> index 746438499029..2472ef96d40a 100644
>> --- a/security/Makefile
>> +++ b/security/Makefile
>> @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ subdir-$(CONFIG_SECURITY_YAMA) += yama
>> subdir-$(CONFIG_SECURITY_LOADPIN) += loadpin
>> subdir-$(CONFIG_SECURITY_SAFESETID) += safesetid
>> subdir-$(CONFIG_SECURITY_LOCKDOWN_LSM) += lockdown
>> +subdir-$(CONFIG_SECURITY_LANDLOCK) += landlock
>>
>> # always enable default capabilities
>> obj-y += commoncap.o
>> @@ -29,6 +30,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_SECURITY_YAMA) += yama/
>> obj-$(CONFIG_SECURITY_LOADPIN) += loadpin/
>> obj-$(CONFIG_SECURITY_SAFESETID) += safesetid/
>> obj-$(CONFIG_SECURITY_LOCKDOWN_LSM) += lockdown/
>> +obj-$(CONFIG_SECURITY_LANDLOCK) += landlock/
>> obj-$(CONFIG_CGROUP_DEVICE) += device_cgroup.o
>>
>> # Object integrity file lists
>> diff --git a/security/landlock/Kconfig b/security/landlock/Kconfig
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..4a321d5b3f67
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/security/landlock/Kconfig
>> @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
>> +
>> +config SECURITY_LANDLOCK
>> + bool "Landlock support"
>> + depends on SECURITY
>> + default n
>> + help
>> + This selects Landlock, a safe sandboxing mechanism. It enables to
>> + restrict processes on the fly (i.e. enforce an access control policy),
>> + which can complement seccomp-bpf. The security policy is a set of access
>> + rights tied to an object, which could be a file, a socket or a process.
>> +
>> + See Documentation/security/landlock/ for further information.
>> +
>> + If you are unsure how to answer this question, answer N.
>> diff --git a/security/landlock/Makefile b/security/landlock/Makefile
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..cb6deefbf4c0
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/security/landlock/Makefile
>> @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
>> +obj-$(CONFIG_SECURITY_LANDLOCK) := landlock.o
>> +
>> +landlock-y := object.o
>> 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);
>> + 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;
>> +}
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * 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);
>
> A one-line comment looks needed for xchg.
Ok. This is to have a guarantee that the underlying_object (e.g. the
inode pointer) is only used once. I'll add a comment.
>
>> + spin_unlock(&object->lock);
>> + might_sleep();
>
> Have trouble working out what might_sleep is put for.
Patch 5 adds a call to landlock_release_inode(underlying_object, object)
(LANDLOCK_OBJECT_INODE case), which can sleep e.g., with a call to iput().
>
>> + 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))) {
>
> Two ! hurt more than help.
Well, it may not look nice but don't you think it is better than a
WARN_ON_ONCE(1) in the if block?
>> + __acquire(object->cleaners);
>> + put_object_free(object);
>
> Why put object more than once?
I just replied to Jann about this subject. This is to "unbalance" the
counter to potentially free it (if there is no more user). I explain it
here:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/67465638-e22c-5d1a-df37-862b31d999a1@digikod.net/
>
>> + }
>> + } else {
>> + spin_unlock(&object->lock);
>> + }
>> + }
>> + put_object_free(object);
>> +}
>> +
>
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.
