On 08/29/2017 12:04 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> IMA has support for matching based on security context, but this is
> currently limited to modules that implement the audit_rule_match hook.
> The infrastructure around this seems to depend on having 32 bit security
> IDs to reference the policy associated with tasks or files, which
> doesn't seem to be a concept that Apparmor really has. So, this
> implementation ignores the abstraction and calls through to Apparmor
> directly.
>
> This seems ugly, so is there a better way to achieve this?
probably via secids :/
secid support in apparmor is a wip, and we are hoping to land full support
in 4.15
I'll see if I can't get a dev branch with them up for you this week.
that said if you wanted to land this sooner I am not opposed to this
going in with a minor change (see below) on the apparmor end
> ---
> include/linux/apparmor.h | 16 ++++++++++++++++
> security/apparmor/lib.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++++++---
> 3 files changed, 69 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 include/linux/apparmor.h
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/apparmor.h b/include/linux/apparmor.h
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..d8ac3f706437
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/include/linux/apparmor.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
> +#ifndef _APPARMOR_H_
> +
> +struct linux_binprm;
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR
> +int aa_task_profile_match(struct linux_binprm *bprm, struct task_struct *tsk,
> + const char *profile);
> +#else
> +static int aa_task_profile_match(struct linux_binprm *bprm,
> + struct task_struct *tsk, const char *profile)
> +{
> + return 0;
> +}
> +#endif
> +
> +#endif
> diff --git a/security/apparmor/lib.c b/security/apparmor/lib.c
> index 08ca26bcca77..04d087e4a1a3 100644
> --- a/security/apparmor/lib.c
> +++ b/security/apparmor/lib.c
> @@ -17,9 +17,11 @@
> #include <linux/slab.h>
> #include <linux/string.h>
> #include <linux/vmalloc.h>
> +#include <linux/apparmor.h>
>
> #include "include/audit.h"
> #include "include/apparmor.h"
> +#include "include/context.h"
> #include "include/lib.h"
> #include "include/perms.h"
> #include "include/policy.h"
> @@ -385,6 +387,36 @@ void aa_profile_match_label(struct aa_profile *profile,
> struct aa_label *label,
> aa_label_match(profile, label, state, false, request, perms);
> }
>
> +/**
> + * aa_task_profile_match - check whether a task is using the specified
> profile
> + * @bprm - bprm structure to extract creds from.
> + * @tsk - task to verify. Ignored if @bprm is not NULL.
> + * @name - name of the profile to search for.
> + */
> +int aa_task_profile_match(struct linux_binprm *bprm, struct task_struct *tsk,
> + const char *name)
> +{
> + struct aa_label *label;
> + struct aa_profile *profile;
> + struct aa_task_ctx *ctx;
> + struct label_it i;
> + const struct cred *cred;
> +
> + if (bprm) {
> + ctx = cred_ctx(bprm->cred);
> + label = aa_get_newest_label(ctx->label);
> + } else {
> + cred = __task_cred(tsk);
> + label = aa_get_newest_cred_label(cred);
> + }
> +
> + label_for_each(i, label, profile) {
> + if (strcmp(name, profile->base.name) == 0)
> + return 1;
> + }
> +
you should be using
profile->base.hname
its an stupid artefact of "hat" profile naming, which predates apparmor policy
namespace support
> + return 0;
> +}
>
> /* currently unused */
> int aa_profile_label_perm(struct aa_profile *profile, struct aa_profile
> *target,
> diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
> b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
> index 93f6af4e3a20..556a1292734c 100644
> --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
> +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
> @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@
> #include <linux/rculist.h>
> #include <linux/genhd.h>
> #include <linux/seq_file.h>
> +#include <linux/apparmor.h>
>
> #include "ima.h"
>
> @@ -47,9 +48,9 @@
> int ima_policy_flag;
> static int temp_ima_appraise;
>
> -#define MAX_LSM_RULES 6
> +#define MAX_LSM_RULES 7
> enum lsm_rule_types { LSM_OBJ_USER, LSM_OBJ_ROLE, LSM_OBJ_TYPE,
> - LSM_SUBJ_USER, LSM_SUBJ_ROLE, LSM_SUBJ_TYPE
> + LSM_SUBJ_USER, LSM_SUBJ_ROLE, LSM_SUBJ_TYPE, LSM_AA_PROFILE
> };
>
> enum policy_types { ORIGINAL_TCB = 1, DEFAULT_TCB };
> @@ -313,6 +314,11 @@ static bool ima_match_rules(struct ima_rule_entry *rule,
> Audit_equal,
> rule->lsm[i].rule,
> NULL);
> + break;
> + case LSM_AA_PROFILE:
> + rc = aa_task_profile_match(bprm, tsk,
> + rule->lsm[i].args_p);
> + break;
> default:
> break;
> }
> @@ -527,7 +533,7 @@ enum {
> Opt_audit,
> Opt_obj_user, Opt_obj_role, Opt_obj_type,
> Opt_subj_user, Opt_subj_role, Opt_subj_type,
> - Opt_func, Opt_mask, Opt_fsmagic,
> + Opt_aa_profile, Opt_func, Opt_mask, Opt_fsmagic,
> Opt_fsuuid, Opt_uid_eq, Opt_euid_eq, Opt_fowner_eq,
> Opt_uid_gt, Opt_euid_gt, Opt_fowner_gt,
> Opt_uid_lt, Opt_euid_lt, Opt_fowner_lt,
> @@ -547,6 +553,7 @@ static match_table_t policy_tokens = {
> {Opt_subj_user, "subj_user=%s"},
> {Opt_subj_role, "subj_role=%s"},
> {Opt_subj_type, "subj_type=%s"},
> + {Opt_aa_profile, "aa_profile=%s"},
> {Opt_func, "func=%s"},
> {Opt_mask, "mask=%s"},
> {Opt_fsmagic, "fsmagic=%s"},
> @@ -847,6 +854,13 @@ static int ima_parse_rule(char *rule, struct
> ima_rule_entry *entry)
> LSM_SUBJ_TYPE,
> AUDIT_SUBJ_TYPE);
> break;
> + case Opt_aa_profile:
> + ima_log_string(ab, "aa_profile", args[0].from);
> + entry->lsm[LSM_AA_PROFILE].args_p = match_strdup(args);
> + entry->lsm[LSM_AA_PROFILE].rule = 1;
> + if (!entry->lsm[LSM_AA_PROFILE].args_p)
> + result = -ENOMEM;
> + break;
> case Opt_appraise_type:
> if (entry->action != APPRAISE) {
> result = -EINVAL;
> @@ -1138,6 +1152,10 @@ int ima_policy_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
> seq_printf(m, pt(Opt_subj_type),
> (char *)entry->lsm[i].args_p);
> break;
> + case LSM_AA_PROFILE:
> + seq_printf(m, pt(Opt_aa_profile),
> + (char *)entry->lsm[i].args_p);
> + break;
> }
> }
> }
>
--
AppArmor mailing list
[email protected]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/apparmor
