Re: Semantics of blktrace with lockdown (integrity) enabled kernel.

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk]

On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 02:39:57PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 6, 2023 at 1:38 PM Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
> <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hey Jens, Paul, James, Nathan,
> >
> > We are trying to use blktrace with a kernel that has lockdown enabled and find that it cannot run.
> >
> > Specifically the issue is that we are trying to do is pretty simple:
> >
> > strace -f blktrace -d /dev/sda -w 60
> >
> > [pid 148882] <... mprotect resumed>)    = 0
> > [pid 148881] openat(AT_FDCWD, "/sys/kernel/debug/block/sda/trace0", O_RDONLY|O_NONBLOCK <unfinished ...>
> > [pid 148882] sched_setaffinity(0, 8, [1]) = 0
> > [pid 148881] <... openat resumed>)      = -1 EPERM (Operation not permitted)
> >
> > which fails. The analysis from Eric (CCed) is that
> >
> > All debugfs entries do not exist until blktrace is run.  It is opening
> > /sys/kernel/debug/block/sda/trace0 which isn’t there normally. While running the utility,
> > to place something in it, it must have the write permission set.  When exiting out of
> > blktrace, the entry is gone, both on a machine running with secure boot enabled
> > and one with it disabled.  Which also indicates the write permission was set,
> > otherwise the entry would still be there.
> >
> > The fix is simple enough (see attachment) but we are not sure about the semantics of what
> > lockdown has in mind.
> >
> > Looking at the include/linux/security.h the LOCKDOWN_TRACEFS exists which would
> > imply that it is expected that operations with tracefs *should* work with lockdown (integrity mode).
> >
> > But at the same point, debugfs writable attributes are a nono with lockdown.
> >
> > So what is the right way forward?
> 
> What did you use as a basis for your changes?  I'm looking at the
> patch you sent and it appears to be making a change to a
> debugfs_lockdown_whitelisted() function defined in
> fs/debugfs/internal.h which does not exist in Linus' tree.  If I
> search through all of the archives on lore.kernel.org the only hit I
> get is your email, so it seems doubtful it is in a subsystem tree
> which hasn't made its way to Linus yet.

My apologies. We had to add some extra code for flipping IBRS on/off at
some point and that is why see this 'whitelisted' one. A more upstream
appropiate patch not be based on this.
> 
> Before we go any further, can you please verify that your issue is
> reproducible on a supported, upstream tree (preferably Linus')?

Yes. Very much so.
Thank you.