lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Feb]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH][SMACK] add a socket_post_accept hook to fix netlabel issues with labeled TCP servers V1
Paul Moore wrote:
> On Tuesday 24 February 2009 05:20:42 pm etienne wrote:
>> Paul Moore wrote:
>>> On Tuesday 24 February 2009 04:28:24 pm etienne wrote:
>>>> /**
>>>> + * smack_socket_post_access - post access check
>>>> + * @sock: the socket
>>>> + * @newsock : the grafted sock
>>>> + *
>>>> + * we have to match client IP against smack_host_label()
>>>> + */
>>>> +static void smack_socket_post_accept(struct socket *sock, struct
>>>> socket *newsock) +{
>>>> + char *hostsp;
>>>> + struct sockaddr_storage address;
>>>> + struct sockaddr_in *sin;
>>>> + struct sockaddr_in6 *sin6;
>>>> + struct in6_addr *addr6;
>>>> + struct socket_smack *ssp = newsock->sk->sk_security;
>>>> + int len;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (sock->sk == NULL)
>>>> + return;
>>>> +
>>>> + /* sockets can listen on both IPv4 & IPv6,
>>>> + and fallback to V4 if client is V4 */
>>>> + if (newsock->sk->sk_family != AF_INET && newsock->sk->sk_family !=
>>>> AF_INET6) + return;
>>>> +
>>>> + /* get the client IP address **/
>>>> + newsock->ops->getname(newsock, (struct sockaddr *)&address, &len, 2);
>>>> +
>>>> + switch (newsock->sk->sk_family) {
>>>> + case AF_INET:
>>>> + sin = (struct sockaddr_in *)&address;
>>>> + break;
>>>> + case AF_INET6:
>>>> + sin6 = (struct sockaddr_in6 *)&address;
>>>> + addr6 = &sin6->sin6_addr;
>>>> + /* if a V4 client connects to a V6 listening server,
>>>> + * we will get a IPV6_ADDR_MAPPED mapped address here
>>>> + * we have to handle this case too
>>>> + * the test below is ipv6_addr_type()== IPV6_ADDR_MAPPED
>>>> + * without the requirement to have IPv6 compiled in
>>>> + */
>>>> + if ((addr6->s6_addr32[0] | addr6->s6_addr32[1]) == 0 &&
>>>> + addr6->s6_addr32[2] == htonl(0x0000ffff)) {
>>>> + __be32 addr = sin6->sin6_addr.s6_addr32[3];
>>>> + __be16 port = sin6->sin6_port;
>>>> + sin = (struct sockaddr_in *)&address;
>>>> + sin->sin_family = AF_INET;
>>>> + sin->sin_port = port;
>>>> + sin->sin_addr.s_addr = addr;
>>>> + } else {
>>>> + /* standard IPv6, we'll send unlabeled */
>>>> + smack_netlabel(newsock->sk, SMACK_UNLABELED_SOCKET);
>>>> + return;
>>>> + }
>>>> + break;
>>>> + default:
>>>> + /** not possible to be there **/
>>>> + return;
>>>> + }
>>>> + /* so, is there a label for the source IP **/
>>>> + hostsp = smack_host_label(sin);
>>>> +
>>>> + if (hostsp == NULL) {
>>>> + if (ssp->smk_labeled != SMACK_CIPSO_SOCKET)
>>>> + smack_netlabel(newsock->sk, SMACK_CIPSO_SOCKET);
>>>> + return;
>>>> + }
>>>> + if (ssp->smk_labeled != SMACK_UNLABELED_SOCKET)
>>>> + smack_netlabel(newsock->sk, SMACK_UNLABELED_SOCKET);
>>>> + return;
>>>> +}
>>> NAK, you can't ignore return values like that.
>>>
>>> I'm sorry I didn't get a chance to respond to your email from this
>>> morning, but the problem with the post_accept() hook is that you can't
>>> fail in this hook. There has been a _lot_ of discussion about this over
>>> the past couple of years on the LSM list. You should check the archives
>>> for all the details but the main problem is that the post_accept() hook
>>> is too late to deny the incoming connection so you can't reject the
>>> connection at that point in any sane manner.
>> well, i don't want to reject the connection here :)
>>
>>> I think I'm going to draft a patch to remove the post_accept()
>>> hook since no one in-tree is using it and it's existence seems to cause
>>> more problems than it solves.
>>>
>>> Now, I understand that your patch doesn't actually enforce any access
>>> controls but it does call smack_netlabel() in several places and that
>>> function can fail
>> The smack_netlabel(newsock->sk, SMACK_CIPSO_SOCKET) can failed, but has no
>> interest in this function (because the socket has already be
>> SMACK_CIPSO_SOCKET labeled by the policy) I can remove it.
>>
>> but smack_netlabel(SMACK_UNLABELED_SOCKET) cannot fail, and that's what i'm
>> interested in could this make the patch acceptable?
>
> Please elaborate a bit more on how you would intend a user to configure and
> make use of this. Also, in what cases would you remove the NetLabel from a
> socket? What cases would you keep it?
>
well, i think it is simple : let's say i want to run a "smack-labelled server" (apache, vsftpd, ...)
clients connect from internet, so the server admin/user will want to add a "0.0.0.0/0 @" entry in netlabel
that will _fail_ because the server will send back "labeled" packets.

In this configuration, client IP matching the netlabel should receive packets unlabeled from server;
it's the case for UDP today, not for TCP. I don't find it intuitive or coherent, but maybe i'm missing something

client IPs that don't match the netlabel list should stay _labeled_, the postaccept wont remove it.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-02-25 00:03    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site