Re: [dm-devel] [RFC PATCH v9 09/16] block|security: add LSM blob to block_device

2023-03-02 Thread Paul Moore
On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 5:58 PM Fan Wu  wrote:
>
> From: Deven Bowers 
>
> block_device structures can have valuable security properties,
> based on how they are created, and what subsystem manages them.
>
> By adding LSM storage to this structure, this data can be accessed
> at the LSM layer.
>
> Signed-off-by: Deven Bowers 
> Signed-off-by: Fan Wu 
> Reviewed-by: Casey Schaufler 

...

> ---
>  block/bdev.c  |  7 
>  include/linux/blk_types.h |  3 ++
>  include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h |  5 +++
>  include/linux/lsm_hooks.h | 12 ++
>  include/linux/security.h  | 22 +++
>  security/security.c   | 70 +++
>  6 files changed, 119 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/block/bdev.c b/block/bdev.c
> index edc110d90df4..f8db53b47c00 100644
> --- a/block/bdev.c
> +++ b/block/bdev.c
> @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@
>  #include 
>  #include 
>  #include 
> +#include 
>  #include 
>  #include 
>  #include 
> @@ -396,6 +397,11 @@ static struct inode *bdev_alloc_inode(struct super_block 
> *sb)
> if (!ei)
> return NULL;
> memset(>bdev, 0, sizeof(ei->bdev));
> +
> +   if (security_bdev_alloc(>bdev)) {
> +   kmem_cache_free(bdev_cachep, ei);
> +   return NULL;
> +   }
> return >vfs_inode;
>  }
>
> @@ -405,6 +411,7 @@ static void bdev_free_inode(struct inode *inode)
>
> free_percpu(bdev->bd_stats);
> kfree(bdev->bd_meta_info);
> +   security_bdev_free(bdev);
>
> if (!bdev_is_partition(bdev)) {
> if (bdev->bd_disk && bdev->bd_disk->bdi)
> diff --git a/include/linux/blk_types.h b/include/linux/blk_types.h
> index 99be590f952f..137a04f45c17 100644
> --- a/include/linux/blk_types.h
> +++ b/include/linux/blk_types.h
> @@ -68,6 +68,9 @@ struct block_device {
>  #ifdef CONFIG_FAIL_MAKE_REQUEST
> boolbd_make_it_fail;
>  #endif
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SECURITY
> +   void*security;
> +#endif
>  } __randomize_layout;
>
>  #define bdev_whole(_bdev) \
> diff --git a/include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h b/include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h
> index ed6cb2ac55fa..1f79029c9e28 100644
> --- a/include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h
> +++ b/include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h
> @@ -417,3 +417,8 @@ LSM_HOOK(int, 0, uring_override_creds, const struct cred 
> *new)
>  LSM_HOOK(int, 0, uring_sqpoll, void)
>  LSM_HOOK(int, 0, uring_cmd, struct io_uring_cmd *ioucmd)
>  #endif /* CONFIG_IO_URING */
> +
> +LSM_HOOK(int, 0, bdev_alloc_security, struct block_device *bdev)
> +LSM_HOOK(void, LSM_RET_VOID, bdev_free_security, struct block_device *bdev)
> +LSM_HOOK(int, 0, bdev_setsecurity, struct block_device *bdev, const char 
> *name,
> +const void *value, size_t size)
> diff --git a/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h b/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
> index 0a5ba81f7367..b622ceb57d83 100644
> --- a/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
> +++ b/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
> @@ -1618,6 +1618,17 @@
>   * @what: kernel feature being accessed.
>   * Return 0 if permission is granted.
>   *
> + * @bdev_alloc_security:
> + * Initialize the security field inside a block_device structure.
> + *
> + * @bdev_free_security:
> + * Cleanup the security information stored inside a block_device 
> structure.
> + *
> + * @bdev_setsecurity:
> + * Set a security property associated with @name for @bdev with
> + * value @value. @size indicates the size of @value in bytes.
> + * If a @name is not implemented, return -EOPNOTSUPP.
> + *

Just a heads-up that the LSM hook comment blocks are moving to
security/security.c very soon now (if they are not already there by
the time you read this).

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-security-module/20230217032625.678457-1-p...@paul-moore.com

> diff --git a/security/security.c b/security/security.c
> index d1571900a8c7..5c81dd3b1350 100644
> --- a/security/security.c
> +++ b/security/security.c
> @@ -2705,6 +2730,51 @@ int security_locked_down(enum lockdown_reason what)
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(security_locked_down);
>
> +int security_bdev_alloc(struct block_device *bdev)
> +{
> +   int rc = 0;
> +
> +   rc = lsm_bdev_alloc(bdev);
> +   if (unlikely(rc))
> +   return rc;
> +
> +   rc = call_int_hook(bdev_alloc_security, 0, bdev);
> +   if (unlikely(rc))
> +   security_bdev_free(bdev);
> +
> +   return LSM_RET_DEFAULT(bdev_alloc_security);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(security_bdev_alloc);
> +
> +void security_bdev_free(struct block_device *bdev)
> +{
> +   if (!bdev->security)
> +   return;
> +
> +   call_void_hook(bdev_free_security, bdev);
> +
> +   kfree(bdev->security);
> +   bdev->security = NULL;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(security_bdev_free);
> +
> +int security_bdev_setsecurity(struct block_device *bdev,
> + const char *name, const void *value,
> + size_t size)
> +{
> +   int rc = 0;
> +   struct 

Re: [dm-devel] [RFC PATCH v9 09/16] block|security: add LSM blob to block_device

2023-02-01 Thread Fan Wu
On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 12:53:59AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 02:57:24PM -0800, Fan Wu wrote:
> > From: Deven Bowers 
> > 
> > block_device structures can have valuable security properties,
> > based on how they are created, and what subsystem manages them.
> 
> That's a lot of cloudy talk but no real explanation.

Sorry for being too general here. Currently the only use target of this hook is 
dm-verity. We use the newly added security hook to save the dm-verity roothash 
and signature to the new bdev security blob during the bdev creation time, so 
LSMs can leverage this information to protect the system. 

I will add this example in the next version.

-Fan

--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@redhat.com
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel



Re: [dm-devel] [RFC PATCH v9 09/16] block|security: add LSM blob to block_device

2023-01-31 Thread Christoph Hellwig
On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 02:57:24PM -0800, Fan Wu wrote:
> From: Deven Bowers 
> 
> block_device structures can have valuable security properties,
> based on how they are created, and what subsystem manages them.

That's a lot of cloudy talk but no real explanation.

--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@redhat.com
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel