[RFC][PATCH] fs: set xattrs in initramfs from regular files

[Casey Schaufler]

On 11/23/2018 11:30 AM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-11-23 at 11:03 -0800, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>> On 11/22/2018 7:49 AM, Roberto Sassu wrote:
>>> Although rootfs (tmpfs) supports xattrs, they are not set due to the
>>> limitation of the cpio format. A new format called 'newcx' was proposed to
>>> overcome this limitation.
>>>
>>> However, it looks like that adding a new format is not simple: 15 kernel
>>> patches; user space tools must support the new format; mistakes made in the
>>> past should be avoided; it is unclear whether the kernel should switch from
>>> cpio to tar.
>>>
>>> The aim of this patch is to provide the same functionality without
>>> introducing a new format. The value of xattrs is placed in regular files
>>> having the same file name as the files xattrs are added to, plus a
>>> separator and the xattr name (<filename>.xattr-<xattr name>).
>>>
>>> Example:
>>>
>>> '/bin/cat.xattr-security.ima' is the name of a file containing the value of
>>> the security.ima xattr to be added to /bin/cat.
>>>
>>> At kernel initialization time, the kernel iterates over the rootfs
>>> filesystem, and if it encounters files with the '.xattr-' separator, it
>>> reads the content and adds the xattr to the file without the suffix.
>> No.
>>
>> Really, no.
>>
>> It would be incredibly easy to use this mechanism to break
>> into systems.
>>  
>>
>>> This proposal requires that LSMs and IMA allow the read and setxattr
>>> operations. This should not be a concern since: files with xattr values
>>> are not parsed by the kernel; user space processes are not yet executed.
>>>
>>> It would be possible to include all xattrs in the same file, but this
>>> increases the risk of the kernel being compromised by parsing the content.
>> The kernel mustn't do this.
> Mustn't do what?  Store the xattr as separate detached files, 
> include all the xattrs in a single or per security/LSM xattr attribute
> file(s), or either?

Any and all of the above. The proposed behavior is a kludge
around making the installation tools work correctly. Sure, it
may be easier to change the kernel than to change the utilities.
That's doesn't make it right.

>
> Mimi
>
>