lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jan]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH ghak90 V8 12/16] audit: contid check descendancy and nesting
On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 2:51 PM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Require the target task to be a descendant of the container
> orchestrator/engine.
>
> You would only change the audit container ID from one set or inherited
> value to another if you were nesting containers.
>
> If changing the contid, the container orchestrator/engine must be a
> descendant and not same orchestrator as the one that set it so it is not
> possible to change the contid of another orchestrator's container.
>
> Since the task_is_descendant() function is used in YAMA and in audit,
> remove the duplication and pull the function into kernel/core/sched.c
>
> Signed-off-by: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com>
> ---
> include/linux/sched.h | 3 +++
> kernel/audit.c | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> kernel/sched/core.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> security/yama/yama_lsm.c | 33 ---------------------------------
> 4 files changed, 72 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-)

...

> diff --git a/kernel/audit.c b/kernel/audit.c
> index f7a8d3288ca0..ef8e07524c46 100644
> --- a/kernel/audit.c
> +++ b/kernel/audit.c
> @@ -2603,22 +2610,43 @@ int audit_set_contid(struct task_struct *task, u64 contid)
> oldcontid = audit_get_contid(task);
> read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> /* Don't allow the contid to be unset */
> - if (!audit_contid_valid(contid))
> + if (!audit_contid_valid(contid)) {
> rc = -EINVAL;
> + goto unlock;
> + }
> /* Don't allow the contid to be set to the same value again */
> - else if (contid == oldcontid) {
> + if (contid == oldcontid) {
> rc = -EADDRINUSE;
> + goto unlock;
> + }
> /* if we don't have caps, reject */
> - else if (!capable(CAP_AUDIT_CONTROL))
> + if (!capable(CAP_AUDIT_CONTROL)) {
> rc = -EPERM;
> - /* if task has children or is not single-threaded, deny */
> - else if (!list_empty(&task->children))
> + goto unlock;
> + }
> + /* if task has children, deny */
> + if (!list_empty(&task->children)) {
> rc = -EBUSY;
> - else if (!(thread_group_leader(task) && thread_group_empty(task)))
> + goto unlock;
> + }
> + /* if task is not single-threaded, deny */
> + if (!(thread_group_leader(task) && thread_group_empty(task))) {
> rc = -EALREADY;
> - /* if contid is already set, deny */
> - else if (audit_contid_set(task))
> + goto unlock;
> + }

It seems like the if/else-if conversion above should be part of an
earlier patchset.

> + /* if task is not descendant, block */
> + if (task == current) {
> + rc = -EBADSLT;
> + goto unlock;
> + }
> + if (!task_is_descendant(current, task)) {
> + rc = -EXDEV;
> + goto unlock;
> + }

I understand you are trying to provide a unique error code for each
failure case, but this is getting silly. Let's group the descendent
checks under the same error code.

> + /* only allow contid setting again if nesting */
> + if (audit_contid_set(task) && audit_contid_isowner(task))
> rc = -ECHILD;

Should that be "!audit_contid_isowner()"?

--
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-01-22 22:30    [W:0.198 / U:5.476 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site