Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | From | "Schaufler, Casey" <> | Subject | RE: [PATCH v5 3/5] SELinux: Prepare for PTRACE_MODE_SCHED | Date | Thu, 27 Sep 2018 16:23:27 +0000 |
| |
> -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Smalley [mailto:sds@tycho.nsa.gov] > Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2018 8:50 AM > To: Schaufler, Casey <casey.schaufler@intel.com>; kernel- > hardening@lists.openwall.com; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-security- > module@vger.kernel.org; selinux@tycho.nsa.gov; Hansen, Dave > <dave.hansen@intel.com>; Dock, Deneen T <deneen.t.dock@intel.com>; > kristen@linux.intel.com; arjan@linux.intel.com; Paul Moore <paul@paul- > moore.com> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/5] SELinux: Prepare for PTRACE_MODE_SCHED > > On 09/26/2018 04:34 PM, Casey Schaufler wrote: > > From: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> > > > > A ptrace access check with mode PTRACE_MODE_SCHED gets called > > from process switching code. This precludes the use of audit or avc, > > as the locking is incompatible. The only available check that > > can be made without using avc is a comparison of the secids. > > This is not very satisfactory as it will indicate possible > > vulnerabilies much too aggressively. > Can you document (in the patch description and/or in the inline > documentation in lsm_hooks.h) what locks can be safely used when this > hook is called with PTRACE_MODE_SCHED? rcu_read_lock() seemingly must > be safe since it is being called by task_sid() below. Are any other > locking primitives safe?
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> had this comment on locking in the SELinux ptrace path.
avc_has_perm_noaudit() security_compute_av() read_lock(&state->ss->policy_rwlock); avc_insert() spin_lock_irqsave(); avc_denied() avc_update_node() spin_lock_irqsave();
under the scheduler's raw_spinlock_t, which are invalid lock nestings.
I don't know that it would be impossible to address these issues, but as many people have noted over the years I am not now nor have ever been an expert on locking.
> > Does the PTRACE_MODE_SCHED check have to occur while holding the > scheduler lock, or could it be performed before taking the lock?
My understanding is that the lock is required.
> Can you cite the commit or patch posting (e.g. from lore or patchwork) > that defines PTRACE_MODE_SCHED and its usage as part of the patch > description for context? Is this based on the v7 patchset, e.g. > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/nycvar.YFH.7.76.1809251437340.15880@cbobk.fhf > r.pm/
Yes, that's the one. Sorry, I should have identified that.
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Casey Schaufler <casey.schaufler@intel.com> > > --- > > security/selinux/hooks.c | 2 ++ > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/security/selinux/hooks.c b/security/selinux/hooks.c > > index ad9a9b8e9979..160239791007 100644 > > --- a/security/selinux/hooks.c > > +++ b/security/selinux/hooks.c > > @@ -2267,6 +2267,8 @@ static int selinux_ptrace_access_check(struct > task_struct *child, > > u32 sid = current_sid(); > > u32 csid = task_sid(child); > > > > + if (mode & PTRACE_MODE_SCHED) > > + return sid == csid ? 0 : -EACCES; > IIUC, this logic is essentially the same as the uid-based check, > including the fact that even a "privileged" process is not given any > special handling since they always return false from ptrace_has_cap() > for PTRACE_MODE_SCHED. If they are ok with applying IBPB whenever uids > differ, then doing so whenever sids/contexts differ does not seem like > an onerous thing. > > > > if (mode & PTRACE_MODE_READ) > > return avc_has_perm(&selinux_state, > > sid, csid, SECCLASS_FILE, FILE__READ, > NULL); > >
| |