|
Message-ID: <28499c4b-d388-7bd1-046e-a775c326e156@digikod.net> Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2020 10:45:01 +0100 From: Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net> To: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com> Cc: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, "Serge E . Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>, Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@...bridgegreys.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>, Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>, Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>, 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>, "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, kernel list <linux-kernel@...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>, Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ux.microsoft.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v24 02/12] landlock: Add ruleset and domain management On 21/11/2020 08:00, Jann Horn wrote: > On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 9:51 PM Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net> wrote: >> A Landlock ruleset is mainly a red-black tree with Landlock rules as >> nodes. This enables quick update and lookup to match a requested >> access, e.g. to a file. A ruleset is usable through a dedicated file >> descriptor (cf. following commit implementing syscalls) which enables a >> process to create and populate a ruleset with new rules. >> >> A domain is a ruleset tied to a set of processes. This group of rules >> defines the security policy enforced on these processes and their future >> children. A domain can transition to a new domain which is the >> intersection of all its constraints and those of a ruleset provided by >> the current process. This modification only impact the current process. >> This means that a process can only gain more constraints (i.e. lose >> accesses) over time. >> >> Cc: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org> >> Cc: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com> >> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> >> Cc: Serge E. Hallyn <serge@...lyn.com> >> Signed-off-by: Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ux.microsoft.com> >> --- >> >> Changes since v23: >> * Always intersect access rights. Following the filesystem change >> logic, make ruleset updates more consistent by always intersecting >> access rights (boolean AND) instead of combining them (boolean OR) for >> the same layer. > > This seems wrong to me. If some software e.g. builds a policy that > allows it to execute specific libraries and to open input files > specified on the command line, and the user then specifies a library > as an input file, this change will make that fail unless the software > explicitly deduplicates the rules. > Userspace will be forced to add extra complexity to work around this. That's a valid use case I didn't think about. Reverting this change is not an issue. > >> This defensive approach could also help avoid user >> space to inadvertently allow multiple access rights for the same >> object (e.g. write and execute access on a path hierarchy) instead of >> dealing with such inconsistency. This can happen when there is no >> deduplication of objects (e.g. paths and underlying inodes) whereas >> they get different access rights with landlock_add_rule(2). > > I don't see why that's an issue. If userspace wants to be able to > access the same object in different ways for different purposes, it > should be able to do that, no? > > I liked the semantics from the previous version. > I agree, but the real issue is with the ruleset layers applied to the filesystem, cf. patch 7.
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.