Re: implement-file-posix-capabilities.patch

[Andrew Morgan]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Serge,

[time passes]

I'm a little better up to speed on all the kernel now. I don't feel that
I conceptually object so much to this patch-series any more.... :-)

I do, however, think the patch needs some work:

1) As previously discussed, fE should be an all or nothing single bit:

How about?:

#define VFS_CAP_REVISION_MASK     0xFF000000
#define VFS_CAP_REVISION          0x01000000

#define VFS_CAP_FLAGS_MASK        ~VFS_CAP_REVISION_MASK
#define VFS_CAP_FLAGS_EFFECTIVE     0x000001

struct vfs_cap_data {
	__u32  magic_etc;
	struct {
        	__u32 permitted;     /* Little endian */
	        __u32 inheritable;   /* Little endian */
        } data[1];
};

2) Allocate capability bit-31 for CAP_SETFCAP, and use it to gate
whether the user can set this xattr on a file or not. CAP_SYS_ADMIN is
way too overloaded and this functionality is special.

3) The cap_from_disk() interface checking needs some work.... Most
notably, size must be greater than sizeof(u32) or the very first line
will do something nasty... I'd recommend you use code like this:

[...] cap_from_disk(...)
{
   if (size != sizeof(struct vfs_cap_data)) {
	printk(KERN_WARNING "%s: invalid cap size %d for file %s\n",
	     __FUNCTION__, size, bprm->filename);
	return -EINVAL;
   }

   switch ((version & VFS_CAP_REVISION_MASK)) {
   case VFS_CAP_REVISION:
        bprm->cap_effective = (version & VFS_CAP_FLAGS_EFFECTIVE)
		? CAP_FULL_SET : CAP_EMPTY_SET;
	bprm->cap_permitted =
		to_cap_t( le32_to_cpu(dcap->data[0].permitted) );
	bprm->cap_inheritable =
		to_cap_t( le32_to_cpu(dcap->data[0].inheritable) );
        return 0;
   default:
	return -EINVAL;
   }
}

Basically, I don't believe in designing a secure interface to be forward
compatible - things never work out that way and the legacy you are
implicitly committing to will haunt you in the future... FWIW I've known
a few x86 MSR designers over the years and each one has made this
mistake at least once... The future is uncertain, so don't trust it will
look the way you want it to. ;-)

5) I would rename 'set_file_caps' to 'get_file_caps' since this is what
the function actually does. If you must use 'set' then call the function
'set_bprm_caps'.

6) I also don't see the value of explicitly zero'ing the capabilities
(in cap_bprm_set_security()) only to override them elsewhere.

I'd move the 'cap_clear (bprm->cap_...)' code from
cap_bprm_set_security() into the 'out:' code at the end of
'get_file_caps()' (sic). Put rc=0 at the top of the function, and
replace the return 0; at the top of that function with a 'goto
clear_out;' then replace the out: code as follows:

   out:
       dput(dentry);
       if ((void *)dcaps != (void *)&v1caps)
		kfree(dcaps);
       if (rc) {
       clear_out:
  	        cap_clear (bprm->cap_inheritable);
 	        cap_clear (bprm->cap_permitted);
 	        cap_clear (bprm->cap_effective);
       }
       return rc;

7) This one is subtle, and to my mind not well appreciated. In
cap_bprm_apply_creds(), the wart of the global 'cap_bset' masking
permitted bits can lead to problems like the one we saw a few years back
with sendmail and capabilities. There is an assumption in setting
permitted (they are called 'forced' in some documents) capabilities on a
file that the file will execute with at least these. The inheritable
ones are optional.

The long and the short of it is there needs to be a check somewhere that:

   current->cap_permitted is a superset of file->cap_permitted

That is, what cap_bset takes away, current->cap_inheritable gives back.
If the above is not true, then the executable should fail to execute;
- -EPERM. On the surface I don't see how to do this with the LSM framework
because the relevant function is a 'void' one and can't return an error.

8) There are a number of (massive) cleanups that I would like to see
done, but they are more related to the non-file capabilities support in
the kernel and I won't pollute this present discussion any more with those.

I hope that was helpful. FWIW I did set up a git repostitory on
kernel.org to port my old patches, but in the process of porting them
better understood what you had done. If you do the above I think I'd be
happy to work from that...

Cheers

Andrew

PS. If anyone is touching file with my transmeta email in them, feel
free to replace them with the @kernel.org address.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGfNYwQheEq9QabfIRAgQ2AJ9q3+BgOPlZvTboqEyM3O845xKZOQCcCLQm
zKVfemAw2F5h43rApDXuJ4o=
=OJWn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/