Re: [PATCH RFC v12 8/20] ipe: add userspace interface

[Paul Moore]

On Jan 30, 2024 Fan Wu <wufan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> As is typical with LSMs, IPE uses securityfs as its interface with
> userspace. for a complete list of the interfaces and the respective
> inputs/outputs, please see the documentation under
> admin-guide/LSM/ipe.rst
> 
> Signed-off-by: Deven Bowers <deven.desai@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Fan Wu <wufan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> v2:
>   + Split evaluation loop, access control hooks,
>     and evaluation loop from policy parser and userspace
>     interface to pass mailing list character limit
> 
> v3:
>   + Move policy load and activation audit event to 03/12
>   + Fix a potential panic when a policy failed to load.
>   + use pr_warn for a failure to parse instead of an
>     audit record
>   + Remove comments from headers
>   + Add lockdep assertions to ipe_update_active_policy and
>     ipe_activate_policy
>   + Fix up warnings with checkpatch --strict
>   + Use file_ns_capable for CAP_MAC_ADMIN for securityfs
>     nodes.
>   + Use memdup_user instead of kzalloc+simple_write_to_buffer.
>   + Remove strict_parse command line parameter, as it is added
>     by the sysctl command line.
>   + Prefix extern variables with ipe_
> 
> v4:
>   + Remove securityfs to reverse-dependency
>   + Add SHA1 reverse dependency.
>   + Add versioning scheme for IPE properties, and associated
>     interface to query the versioning scheme.
>   + Cause a parser to always return an error on unknown syntax.
>   + Remove strict_parse option
>   + Change active_policy interface from sysctl, to securityfs,
>     and change scheme.
> 
> v5:
>   + Cause an error if a default action is not defined for each
>     operation.
>   + Minor function renames
> 
> v6:
>   + No changes
> 
> v7:
>   + Propagating changes to support the new ipe_context structure in the
>     evaluation loop.
> 
>   + Further split the parser and userspace interface changes into
>     separate commits.
> 
>   + "raw" was renamed to "pkcs7" and made read only
>   + "raw"'s write functionality (update a policy) moved to "update"
>   + introduced "version", "policy_name" nodes.
>   + "content" renamed to "policy"
>   + changes to allow the compiled-in policy to be treated
>     identical to deployed-after-the-fact policies.
> 
> v8:
>   + Prevent securityfs initialization if the LSM is disabled
> 
> v9:
>   + Switch to securityfs_recursive_remove for policy folder deletion
> 
> v10:
>   + Simplify and correct concurrency
>   + Fix typos
> 
> v11:
>   + Correct code comments
> 
> v12:
>   + Correct locking and remove redundant code
> ---
>  security/ipe/Makefile    |   2 +
>  security/ipe/fs.c        | 101 +++++++++
>  security/ipe/fs.h        |  16 ++
>  security/ipe/ipe.c       |   3 +
>  security/ipe/ipe.h       |   2 +
>  security/ipe/policy.c    | 123 ++++++++++
>  security/ipe/policy.h    |   9 +
>  security/ipe/policy_fs.c | 469 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  8 files changed, 725 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 security/ipe/fs.c
>  create mode 100644 security/ipe/fs.h
>  create mode 100644 security/ipe/policy_fs.c

..

> diff --git a/security/ipe/policy.c b/security/ipe/policy.c
> index f22a576a6d68..61fea3e38e11 100644
> --- a/security/ipe/policy.c
> +++ b/security/ipe/policy.c
> @@ -43,6 +71,68 @@ static int set_pkcs7_data(void *ctx, const void *data, size_t len,
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> +/**
> + * ipe_update_policy - parse a new policy and replace old with it.
> + * @root: Supplies a pointer to the securityfs inode saved the policy.
> + * @text: Supplies a pointer to the plain text policy.
> + * @textlen: Supplies the length of @text.
> + * @pkcs7: Supplies a pointer to a buffer containing a pkcs7 message.
> + * @pkcs7len: Supplies the length of @pkcs7len.
> + *
> + * @text/@textlen is mutually exclusive with @pkcs7/@pkcs7len - see
> + * ipe_new_policy.
> + *
> + * Context: Requires root->i_rwsem to be held.
> + * Return:
> + * * !IS_ERR	- The existing policy saved in the inode before update
> + * * -ENOENT	- Policy doesn't exist
> + * * -EINVAL	- New policy is invalid
> + */
> +struct ipe_policy *ipe_update_policy(struct inode *root,
> +				     const char *text, size_t textlen,
> +				     const char *pkcs7, size_t pkcs7len)
> +{
> +	int rc = 0;
> +	struct ipe_policy *old, *ap, *new = NULL;
> +
> +	old = (struct ipe_policy *)root->i_private;
> +	if (!old)
> +		return ERR_PTR(-ENOENT);
> +
> +	new = ipe_new_policy(text, textlen, pkcs7, pkcs7len);
> +	if (IS_ERR(new))
> +		return new;
> +
> +	if (strcmp(new->parsed->name, old->parsed->name)) {
> +		rc = -EINVAL;
> +		goto err;
> +	}
> +
> +	if (ver_to_u64(old) > ver_to_u64(new)) {
> +		rc = -EINVAL;
> +		goto err;
> +	}
> +
> +	root->i_private = new;
> +	swap(new->policyfs, old->policyfs);

Should the swap() take place with @ipe_policy_lock held?

> +	mutex_lock(&ipe_policy_lock);
> +	ap = rcu_dereference_protected(ipe_active_policy,
> +				       lockdep_is_held(&ipe_policy_lock));
> +	if (old == ap) {
> +		rcu_assign_pointer(ipe_active_policy, new);
> +		mutex_unlock(&ipe_policy_lock);
> +		synchronize_rcu();

I'm guessing you are forcing a synchronize_rcu() here because you are
free()'ing @old in the caller, yes?  Looking at the code, I only see
one caller, update_policy().  With only one caller, why not free @old
directly in ipe_update_policy()?  Do you see others callers that would
do something different?

> +	} else {
> +		mutex_unlock(&ipe_policy_lock);
> +	}
> +
> +	return old;
> +err:
> +	ipe_free_policy(new);
> +	return ERR_PTR(rc);
> +}
> +
>  /**
>   * ipe_new_policy - Allocate and parse an ipe_policy structure.
>   *
> @@ -99,3 +189,36 @@ struct ipe_policy *ipe_new_policy(const char *text, size_t textlen,
>  	ipe_free_policy(new);
>  	return ERR_PTR(rc);
>  }
> +
> +/**
> + * ipe_set_active_pol - Make @p the active policy.
> + * @p: Supplies a pointer to the policy to make active.
> + *
> + * Context: Requires root->i_rwsem, which i_private has the policy, to be held.
> + * Return:
> + * * !IS_ERR	- Success
> + * * -EINVAL	- New active policy version is invalid
> + */
> +int ipe_set_active_pol(const struct ipe_policy *p)
> +{
> +	struct ipe_policy *ap = NULL;
> +
> +	mutex_lock(&ipe_policy_lock);
> +
> +	ap = rcu_dereference_protected(ipe_active_policy,
> +				       lockdep_is_held(&ipe_policy_lock));
> +	if (ap == p) {
> +		mutex_unlock(&ipe_policy_lock);
> +		return 0;
> +	}
> +	if (ap && ver_to_u64(ap) > ver_to_u64(p)) {
> +		mutex_unlock(&ipe_policy_lock);
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +	}
> +
> +	rcu_assign_pointer(ipe_active_policy, p);
> +	mutex_unlock(&ipe_policy_lock);
> +	synchronize_rcu();

Why do you need the synchronize_rcu() call here?

> +	return 0;
> +}


--
paul-moore.com