Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] selinux: add brief info to policydb

[Stephen Smalley]

On Wed, 2017-05-17 at 18:19 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 1:09 PM, Sebastien Buisson
> <sbuisson.ddn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Add policybrief field to struct policydb. It holds a brief info
> > of the policydb, made of colon separated name and value pairs
> > that give information about how the policy is applied in the
> > security module(s).
> > Note that the ordering of the fields in the string may change.
> > 
> > Policy brief is computed every time the policy is loaded, and when
> > enforce or checkreqprot are changed.
> > 
> > Add security_policy_brief hook to give access to policy brief to
> > the rest of the kernel. It is useful for any network or
> > distributed file system that cares about how SELinux is enforced
> > on its client nodes. This information is used to detect changes
> > to the policy on file system client nodes, and can be forwarded
> > to file system server nodes. Depending on how the policy is
> > enforced on client side, server can refuse connection.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Sebastien Buisson <sbuisson@xxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > Âinclude/linux/lsm_hooks.hÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ| 20 +++++++++
> > Âinclude/linux/security.hÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ|ÂÂ7 +++
> > Âsecurity/security.cÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ|ÂÂ6 +++
> > Âsecurity/selinux/hooks.cÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ|ÂÂ7 +++
> > Âsecurity/selinux/include/security.h |ÂÂ2 +
> > Âsecurity/selinux/selinuxfs.cÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ|ÂÂ2 +
> > Âsecurity/selinux/ss/policydb.cÂÂÂÂÂÂ| 88
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > Âsecurity/selinux/ss/policydb.hÂÂÂÂÂÂ|ÂÂ3 ++
> > Âsecurity/selinux/ss/services.cÂÂÂÂÂÂ| 67
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > Â9 files changed, 202 insertions(+)
> 
> I agree with Stephen's comments regarding the patch structure, but I
> have a few additional comments below ...
> 
> > diff --git a/security/selinux/ss/policydb.c
> > b/security/selinux/ss/policydb.c
> > index 87d645d..b37b8e5 100644
> > --- a/security/selinux/ss/policydb.c
> > +++ b/security/selinux/ss/policydb.c
> > @@ -32,13 +32,20 @@
> > Â#include <linux/errno.h>
> > Â#include <linux/audit.h>
> > Â#include <linux/flex_array.h>
> > +#include <crypto/hash.h>
> > Â#include "security.h"
> > 
> > Â#include "policydb.h"
> > Â#include "conditional.h"
> > Â#include "mls.h"
> > +#include "objsec.h"
> > Â#include "services.h"
> > 
> > +static unsigned int policybrief_hash_size;
> > +static struct crypto_shash *policybrief_tfm;
> > +static const char policybrief_hash_alg[] = "sha256";
> > +unsigned int policybrief_len;
> 
> I'm not a fan of all these global variables, consider it a pet peeve
> of mine.
> 
> I'm hopeful that we can drop policybrief_hash_size and
> policybrief_len, see my comments below.

Hmm...well, they were introduced based on my comments on earlier
versions of the patch (v2 and v3).  They can be computed once during
init and never change subsequently; they could even be __ro_after_init.

> > Â#define _DEBUG_HASHES
> > 
> > Â#ifdef DEBUG_HASHES
> > @@ -874,6 +881,8 @@ void policydb_destroy(struct policydb *p)
> > ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂebitmap_destroy(&p->filename_trans_ttypes);
> > ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂebitmap_destroy(&p->policycaps);
> > ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂebitmap_destroy(&p->permissive_map);
> > +
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂkfree(p->policybrief);
> > Â}
> > 
> > Â/*
> > @@ -2215,6 +2224,52 @@ static int ocontext_read(struct policydb *p,
> > struct policydb_compat_info *info,
> > Â}
> > 
> > Â/*
> > + * Compute summary of a policy database binary representation
> > file,
> > + * and store it into a policy database structure.
> > + */
> > +static int policydb_brief(struct policydb *policydb, void *ptr)
> > +{
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂSHASH_DESC_ON_STACK(desc, policybrief_tfm);
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂstruct policy_file *fp = ptr;
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂu8 *hashval;
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂint rc;
> > +
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂBUG_ON(policydb->policybrief);
> 
> I prefer normal error checking (e.g. if statements) over BUG
> assertions whenever possible.

Technically, this truly would be a kernel-internal bug (not something a
user could trigger apart from a kernel bug), since policydb_brief() is
only supposed to be called once per policydb from policydb_read().
However, I could see just dropping this check altogether; we don't
generally assert function preconditions like this.

> 
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂhashval = kmalloc(policybrief_hash_size, GFP_KERNEL);
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂif (hashval == NULL)
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂreturn -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂdesc->tfm = policybrief_tfm;
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂdesc->flags = 0;
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂrc = crypto_shash_digest(desc, fp->data, fp->len, hashval);
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂif (rc) {
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂprintk(KERN_ERR "Failed crypto_shash_digest: %d\n",
> > rc);
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂgoto out_free;
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ}
> > +
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ/* policy brief is in the form:
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ* selinux(enforce=<0 or 1>:checkreqprot=<0 or
> > 1>:<hashalg>=<checksum>)
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ*/
> 
> See my comments a little later down about the brief format comments.
> 
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂpolicydb->policybrief = kmalloc(policybrief_len,
> > GFP_KERNEL);
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂif (policydb->policybrief == NULL) {
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂrc = -ENOMEM;
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂgoto out_free;
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ}
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂrc = snprintf(policydb->policybrief, policybrief_len,
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ"selinux(enforce=%d:checkreqprot=%d:%s=%*phN)
> > ",
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂselinux_enforcing, selinux_checkreqprot,
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂpolicybrief_hash_alg, policybrief_hash_size,
> > hashval);
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂBUG_ON(rc >= policybrief_len);
> 
> This length check should definitely be a normal check and not a
> BUG_ON() assertion.

This one also would be a kernel-internal bug and would help catch
inconsistencies between the policybrief_len computation and the actual
string length (e.g. if someone changed the format string above without
adjusting the length computation to match).  It could be even stricter,
e.g. BUG_ON(rc != (policybrief_len - 1)).

I know that BUG_ON is generally frowned upon, but this case seems more
justified, as it is a kernel-internal bug (not user triggerable apart
from a kernel bug) and would catch an internal inconsistency. Returning
a runtime error instead here would cause policy load to fail, but it
wouldn't be the policy that was invalid but instead the kernel itself. 
That said, this may be obsoleted based on your other comments.

> 
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂrc = 0;
> > +
> > +out_free:
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂkfree(hashval);
> > +
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂreturn rc;
> > +}
> > +
> > +/*
> > Â * Read the configuration data from a policy database binary
> > Â * representation file into a policy database structure.
> > Â */
> > @@ -2233,6 +2288,11 @@ int policydb_read(struct policydb *p, void
> > *fp)
> > ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂif (rc)
> > ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂreturn rc;
> > 
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ/* Compute summary of policy, and store it in policydb */
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂrc = policydb_brief(p, fp);
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂif (rc)
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂgoto bad;
> > +
> > ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ/* Read the magic number and string length. */
> > ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂrc = next_entry(buf, fp, sizeof(u32) * 2);
> > ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂif (rc)
> > @@ -3451,3 +3511,31 @@ int policydb_write(struct policydb *p, void
> > *fp)
> > 
> > ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂreturn 0;
> > Â}
> > +
> > +static int __init init_policybrief_hash(void)
> > +{
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂstruct crypto_shash *tfm;
> > +
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂif (!selinux_enabled)
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂreturn 0;
> > +
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂtfm = crypto_alloc_shash(policybrief_hash_alg, 0, 0);
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂif (IS_ERR(tfm)) {
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂprintk(KERN_ERR "Failed to alloc crypto hash %s\n",
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂpolicybrief_hash_alg);
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂreturn PTR_ERR(tfm);
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ}
> > +
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂpolicybrief_tfm = tfm;
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂpolicybrief_hash_size =
> > crypto_shash_digestsize(policybrief_tfm);
> > +
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ/* policy brief is in the form:
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ* selinux(enforce=<0 or 1>:checkreqprot=<0 or
> > 1>:<hashalg>=<checksum>)
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ*/
> 
> Let's drop the exact brief format here and just point people at
> policydb_brief() where we describe the format in the functions
> comment
> block at the top.ÂÂI like the thought behind this, but with multiple
> copies of the same information it is likely that they will fall out
> of
> sync at some point in the future.
> 
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂpolicybrief_len = 35 + strlen(policybrief_hash_alg) +
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ2*policybrief_hash_size + 1;
> 
> This is another long term maintenance headache.ÂÂI realize the
> comment
> above is supposed to make this easier, but I'm still going to have to
> count characters by hand whenever we play with this and that is
> problematic because I only have 10 fingers ;)
> 
> How often is the Lustre kernel module going to be requesting the
> policy brief?ÂÂIf it is going to be often enough that a strlen() call
> is too costly, I think you may be better served by leveraging some of
> the LSM notification bits that were talked about earlier (e.g. the
> stuff from the IB patches) to reduce your need to update Lustre's
> copy
> of the brief.ÂÂThis was we can handle the brief length calculation
> locally in policydb_brief() and simply use a strlen() call in
> security_policydb_brief().

v2 and v3 of the patch did essentially what you describe above (v2 had
policydb_brief() store the length in the policydb for use by
security_policydb_brief(), v3 just called strlen() in
security_policydb_brief()).  Both looked racy; they each took the
policy read lock, extracted or computed the length, dropped the read
lock, allocated the buffer, re-took the read lock, and copied out the
brief.  Since the length was stored in the policydb or computed each
time, it looked like the length could change across a policy reload, in
which case the code was unsafe.  I noted that the length was in fact
fixed (at least after init) and could be computed once during init. 
Then we don't need to store it in the policydb or recompute it each
time, and we don't need to take the read lock twice or complicate the
code to try to prevent something that cannot actually occur (a change
in length at runtime).

> 
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂreturn 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +late_initcall(init_policybrief_hash);
> 
> ...
> 
> > diff --git a/security/selinux/ss/services.c
> > b/security/selinux/ss/services.c
> > index 60d9b02..67eb80d 100644
> > --- a/security/selinux/ss/services.c
> > +++ b/security/selinux/ss/services.c
> > @@ -2170,6 +2170,73 @@ size_t security_policydb_len(void)
> > Â}
> > 
> > Â/**
> > + * security_policydb_brief - Get policydb brief
> > + * @brief: pointer to buffer holding brief
> > + * @len: in: brief buffer length if no alloc, out: brief string
> > len
> > + * @alloc: whether to allocate buffer for brief or not
> > + *
> > + * If @alloc, *brief must be kfreed by caller.
> > + * If not @alloc, caller must pass a buffer that can hold
> > policybrief_len
> > + * chars (including terminating NUL).
> > + * On success 0 is returned , or negative value on error.
> > + **/
> > +int security_policydb_brief(char **brief, size_t *len, bool alloc)
> > +{
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂif (!ss_initialized || brief == NULL)
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂreturn -EINVAL;
> > +
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂif (alloc) {
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ*brief = kzalloc(policybrief_len, GFP_KERNEL);
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ} else if (*len < policybrief_len) {
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ/* put in *len the string size we need to write */
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ*len = policybrief_len;
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂreturn -ENAMETOOLONG;
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ}
> > +
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂif (*brief == NULL)
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂreturn -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂread_lock(&policy_rwlock);
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂstrcpy(*brief, policydb.policybrief);
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ/* *len is the length of the output string */
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ*len = policybrief_len - 1;
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂread_unlock(&policy_rwlock);
> > +
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂreturn 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +void security_policydb_update_info(u32 requested)
> > +{
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ/* policy brief is in the form:
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ* selinux(enforce=<0 or 1>:checkreqprot=<0 or
> > 1>:<hashalg>=<checksum>)
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ*/
> 
> See my earlier comments about the brief format.
> 
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂchar enforce[] = "enforce=";
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂchar checkreqprot[] = "checkreqprot=";
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂchar *p, *str;
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂint val;
> > +
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂif (!ss_initialized)
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂreturn;
> > +
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂif (requested == SECURITY__SETENFORCE) {
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂstr = enforce;
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂval = selinux_enforcing;
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ} else if (requested == SECURITY__SETCHECKREQPROT) {
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂstr = checkreqprot;
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂval = selinux_checkreqprot;
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ}
> 
> Turn the above into a switch/case statement and make the default
> return immediately.
> 
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ/* update global policydb, needs write lock */
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂwrite_lock_irq(&policy_rwlock);
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂp = strstr(policydb.policybrief, str);
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂif (p) {
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂp += strlen(str);
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ*p = '0' + val;
> 
> To be overly cautious, let's remove the possibility for anything
> other
> than '0' or '1'.
> 
> Â *p = (val ? '1' : '0');
> 
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ}
> > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂwrite_unlock_irq(&policy_rwlock);
> > +}
> > +
> > +/**
> > Â * security_port_sid - Obtain the SID for a port.
> > Â * @protocol: protocol number
> > Â * @port: port number
> > --
> > 1.8.3.1
> 
>