[PATCH 05/10] CaitSith: Add LSM interface management file.
Kees Cook
keescook at chromium.org
Wed Nov 2 19:05:55 UTC 2022
On Thu, Nov 03, 2022 at 02:10:20AM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> This file is used for registering CaitSith module into the
> security_hook_heads list. Further patches will not be interesting for
> reviewers, for further patches are providing similar functions provided
> by TOMOYO (but too different to share the code).
>
> Signed-off-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel at I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
> [...]
> +#define cs_debug_trace(pos) \
> + do { \
> + static bool done; \
> + if (!done) { \
> + pr_info("CAITSITH: Debug trace: " pos " of 2\n"); \
> + done = true; \
> + } \
> + } while (0)
This can be replaced by pr_info_once().
> [...]
> +#if defined(CONFIG_STRICT_KERNEL_RWX) && !defined(CONFIG_SECURITY_WRITABLE_HOOKS)
> +#include <linux/uaccess.h> /* copy_to_kernel_nofault() */
> +#define NEED_TO_CHECK_HOOKS_ARE_WRITABLE
> +
> +#if defined(CONFIG_X86)
> +#define MAX_RO_PAGES 1024
> +static struct page *ro_pages[MAX_RO_PAGES] __initdata;
> +static unsigned int ro_pages_len __initdata;
> +
> +static bool __init lsm_test_page_ro(void *addr)
> +{
> + unsigned int i;
> + int unused;
> + struct page *page;
> +
> + page = (struct page *) lookup_address((unsigned long) addr, &unused);
> + if (!page)
> + return false;
> + if (test_bit(_PAGE_BIT_RW, &(page->flags)))
> + return true;
> + for (i = 0; i < ro_pages_len; i++)
> + if (page == ro_pages[i])
> + return true;
> + if (ro_pages_len == MAX_RO_PAGES)
> + return false;
> + ro_pages[ro_pages_len++] = page;
> + return true;
> +}
> +
> +static bool __init check_ro_pages(struct security_hook_heads *hooks)
> +{
> + int i;
> + struct hlist_head *list = &hooks->capable;
> +
> + if (!copy_to_kernel_nofault(list, list, sizeof(void *)))
> + return true;
> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(caitsith_hooks); i++) {
> + struct hlist_head *head = caitsith_hooks[i].head;
> + struct security_hook_list *shp;
> +
> + if (!lsm_test_page_ro(&head->first))
> + return false;
> + hlist_for_each_entry(shp, head, list)
> + if (!lsm_test_page_ro(&shp->list.next) ||
> + !lsm_test_page_ro(&shp->list.pprev))
> + return false;
> + }
> + return true;
> +}
> +#else
> +static bool __init check_ro_pages(struct security_hook_heads *hooks)
> +{
> + struct hlist_head *list = &hooks->capable;
> +
> + return !copy_to_kernel_nofault(list, list, sizeof(void *));
> +}
> +#endif
> +#endif
> +
> +/**
> + * cs_init - Initialize this module.
> + *
> + * Returns 0 on success, negative value otherwise.
> + */
> +static int __init cs_init(void)
> +{
> + int idx;
> +#if defined(NEED_TO_CHECK_HOOKS_ARE_WRITABLE)
> + if (!check_ro_pages(&security_hook_heads)) {
> + pr_info("Can't update security_hook_heads due to write protected. Retry with rodata=0 kernel command line option added.\n");
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +#endif
> + for (idx = 0; idx < CS_MAX_TASK_SECURITY_HASH; idx++)
> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&cs_task_security_list[idx]);
> + cs_init_module();
> +#if defined(NEED_TO_CHECK_HOOKS_ARE_WRITABLE) && defined(CONFIG_X86)
> + for (idx = 0; idx < ro_pages_len; idx++)
> + set_bit(_PAGE_BIT_RW, &(ro_pages[idx]->flags));
> +#endif
> + swap_hook(&caitsith_hooks[0], &original_task_free);
> + swap_hook(&caitsith_hooks[1], &original_cred_prepare);
> + swap_hook(&caitsith_hooks[2], &original_task_alloc);
> + for (idx = 3; idx < ARRAY_SIZE(caitsith_hooks); idx++)
> + add_hook(&caitsith_hooks[idx]);
> +#if defined(NEED_TO_CHECK_HOOKS_ARE_WRITABLE) && defined(CONFIG_X86)
> + for (idx = 0; idx < ro_pages_len; idx++)
> + clear_bit(_PAGE_BIT_RW, &(ro_pages[idx]->flags));
> +#endif
> + return 0;
> +}
I'm sorry, but absolutely not. One of the most basic elements of the
LSM infrastructure is that it is read-only. Even __lsm_ro_after_init is
a grand-fathered behavior that is supposed to be removed once all the
old SELinux disable-at-runtime users are gone.
I don't see any _justification_ for why any of this is needed. Yes,
it is technically possible to make an LSM loadable, but there needs to
be a convincing rationale for _why_.
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
More information about the Linux-security-module-archive
mailing list