[PATCH v2] xattr: Enable security.capability in user namespaces

Tue Jul 18 13:21:22 UTC 2017

On 07/18/2017 08:30 AM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 08:05:18AM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote:
>> On 07/18/2017 07:48 AM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 04:50:22PM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote:
>>>> On 07/17/2017 02:58 PM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 11:05:11AM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [..]
>>>>>> +/*
>>>>>> + * xattr_list_userns_rewrite - Rewrite list of xattr names for user namespaces
>>>>>> + *                             or determine needed size for attribute list
>>>>>> + *                             in case size == 0
>>>>>> + *
>>>>>> + * In a user namespace we do not present all extended attributes to the
>>>>>> + * user. We filter out those that are in the list of userns supported xattr.
>>>>>> + * Besides that we filter out those with @uid=<uid> when there is no mapping
>>>>>> + * for that uid in the current user namespace.
>>>>>> + *
>>>>>> + * @list:        list of 0-byte separated xattr names
>>>>>> + * @size:        the size of the list; may be 0 to determine needed list size
>>>>>> + * @list_maxlen: allocated buffer size of list
>>>>>> + */
>>>>>> +static ssize_t
>>>>>> +xattr_list_userns_rewrite(char *list, ssize_t size, size_t list_maxlen)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> +	char *nlist = NULL;
>>>>>> +	size_t s_off, len, nlen;
>>>>>> +	ssize_t d_off;
>>>>>> +	char *name, *newname;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +	if (!list || size < 0 || current_user_ns() == &init_user_ns)
>>>>> size will never be less than 0 here. Only caller calls this function only
>>>>> if size is >0. So can we remove this?
>>>> Correct.
>>>>
>>>>> What about case of "!list". So if user space called listxattr(foo, NULL,
>>>>> 0), we want to return the size of buffer as if all the xattrs will be
>>>>> returned to user space. But in practice we probably will filter out some
>>>>> xattrs so actually returned string will be smaller than size reported
>>>>> previously.
>>>> This case of size=0 is a problem in userns. Depending on the mapping of the
>>>> userid's the list can expand. A security.foo at uid=100 can become
>>>> security.foo at uid=100000, if the mapping is set up so that uid 100 on the
>>>> host becomes uid 100000 inside the container. So for now we only have
>>>> security.capability and the way I solved this is by allocating a 65k buffer
>>>> when calling from a userns. In this buffer where we gather the xattr names
>>>> and then walk them to determine the size that's needed for the buffer by
>>>> simulating the rewriting. It's not nice but I don't know of any other
>>>> solution.
>>> Hi Stefan,
>>>
>>> For the case of size==0, why don't we iterate through all the xattr,
>>> filter them, remap them and then return the size to process in user
>>> namespace. That should fix this? I thought that's what
>>
>> For the size==0 we need a temp. buffer where the raw xattr names are written
>> to so that the xattr_list_userns_rewrite() can actually rewrite what the
>> filesystem drivers returned.
> I am probably missing something, but for the case of size==0, we don't
> have to copy all xattrs. We just need to determine size. So we can walk
> through each xattr, remap it and add to the size. I mean there should not
> be a need to allocate this 65K buffer. Just enough space needed to be
> able to store remapped xattr.
>
> You are already doing it in xattr_parse_uid_from_kuid(). It returns the
> buffer containing remapped xattr. So we should be able to just determine
> the size and free the buffer. And do it for all the xattrs returned by
> filesystem.
>
> What am I missing?

The problem is that each filesystem has a function that collects the 
xattr names. These functions only return the needed size if size==0 and 
don't write anything into a buffer. If the buffer is empty or there is 
no buffer, I have nothing to remap and calculate size for. So I pass a 
buffer large enough to hold the xattr names to the filesystem functions 
so I can then subsequently walk the xattrs and remap them. The remapping 
only needs to be done in non-init_user_ns since there the uid parts 
(@uid=1000) may need to be rewritten and most importantly, the size of 
the needed buffer can increase, depending on how the uid mappings are.

I don't want to extend every filesystem's xattr name gathering function...

    Stefan

>
> Vivek
>
>> Not knowing exactly how big that buffer should
>> be, I allocate 65k for it. From what I read there is a 64k limit on the vfs
>> layer for xattrs, probably including xattr values. So 65k would for sure be
>> enough also if each one of the xattr names becomes bigger.
>>
>> @@ -922,10 +947,20 @@ vfs_listxattr(struct dentry *dentry, char *list,
>> size_t size, bool rewrite)
>>   {
>>       struct inode *inode = d_inode(dentry);
>>       ssize_t error;
>> +    bool getsize = false;
>>
>>       error = security_inode_listxattr(dentry);
>>       if (error)
>>           return error;
>> +
>> +    if (!size) {
>> +        if (current_user_ns() != &init_user_ns) {
>> +            size = 65 * 1024;
>> +            list = kmalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL);
>> +        }
>> +        getsize = true;
>> +    }
>> +
>>       if (inode->i_op->listxattr && (inode->i_opflags & IOP_XATTR)) {
>>           error = -EOPNOTSUPP;
>>           error = inode->i_op->listxattr(dentry, list, size);
>> @@ -937,6 +972,9 @@ vfs_listxattr(struct dentry *dentry, char *list, size_t
>> size, bool rewrite)
>>       if (error > 0 && rewrite)
>>           error = xattr_list_userns_rewrite(list, error, size);
>>
>> +    if (getsize)
>> +        kfree(list);
>> +
>>       return error;
>>   }
>>   EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(vfs_listxattr);
>>
>>
>>      Stefan
>>
>>> xattr_list_userns_rewrite() was doing. But looks like this logic will not
>>> kick in for the case of size==0 due to "!list" condition.
>>>
>>> Also we could probably replace "!list" with "!size" wheverever required.
>>> Its little easy to read and understand.
>>>
>>> For the other case where some xattrs can get filtered out and we report
>>> a buffer size bigger than actually needed, I am hoping that its acceptable
>>> and none of the existing users are broken.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Vivek
>>> --
>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in
>>> the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
>>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>>

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in
the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html