Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH bpf-next v7 4/8] bpf: lsm: Implement attach, detach and execution | From | Stephen Smalley <> | Date | Fri, 27 Mar 2020 09:43:45 -0400 |
| |
On 3/27/20 8:41 AM, KP Singh wrote: > On 27-Mär 08:27, Stephen Smalley wrote: >> On 3/26/20 8:24 PM, James Morris wrote: >>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2020, KP Singh wrote: >>> >>>> +int bpf_lsm_verify_prog(struct bpf_verifier_log *vlog, >>>> + const struct bpf_prog *prog) >>>> +{ >>>> + /* Only CAP_MAC_ADMIN users are allowed to make changes to LSM hooks >>>> + */ >>>> + if (!capable(CAP_MAC_ADMIN)) >>>> + return -EPERM; >>>> + >>> >>> Stephen, can you confirm that your concerns around this are resolved >>> (IIRC, by SELinux implementing a bpf_prog callback) ? >> >> I guess the only residual concern I have is that CAP_MAC_ADMIN means >> something different to SELinux (ability to get/set file security contexts >> unknown to the currently loaded policy), so leaving the CAP_MAC_ADMIN check >> here (versus calling a new security hook here and checking CAP_MAC_ADMIN in >> the implementation of that hook for the modules that want that) conflates >> two very different things. Prior to this patch, there are no users of >> CAP_MAC_ADMIN outside of individual security modules; it is only checked in >> module-specific logic within apparmor, safesetid, selinux, and smack, so the >> meaning was module-specific. > > As we had discussed, We do have a security hook as well: > > https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20200324180652.GA11855@chromium.org/ > > The bpf_prog hook which can check for BPF_PROG_TYPE_LSM and implement > module specific logic for LSM programs. I thougt that was okay? > > Kees was in favor of keeping the CAP_MAC_ADMIN check here: > > https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/202003241133.16C02BE5B@keescook > > If you feel strongly and Kees agrees, we can remove the CAP_MAC_ADMIN > check here, but given that we already have a security hook that meets > the requirements, we probably don't need another one.
I would favor removing the CAP_MAC_ADMIN check here, and implementing it in a bpf_prog hook for Smack and AppArmor if they want that. SELinux would implement its own check in its existing bpf_prog hook.
| |