[systemd-devel] Suspending access to opened/active /dev/nodes during application runtime

2014-03-07 Thread Lukasz Pawelczyk
Problem:
Has anyone thought about a mechanism to limit/remove an access to a
device during an application runtime? Meaning we have an application
that has an open file descriptor to some /dev/node and depending on
*something* it gains or looses the access to it gracefully (with or
without a notification, but without any fatal consequences).

Example:
LXC. Imagine we have 2 separate containers. Both running full operating
systems. Specifically with 2 X servers. Both running concurrently of
course. Both need the same input devices (e.g. we have just one mouse).
This creates a security problem when we want to have completely separate
environments. One container is active (being displayed on a monitor and
controlled with a mouse) while the other container runs evtest
/dev/input/something and grabs the secret password user typed in the
other.

Solutions:
The complete solution would comprise of 2 parts:
- a mechanism that would allow to temporally hide a device from an
open file descriptor.
- a mechanism for deciding whether application/process/namespace should
have an access to a specific device at a specific moment

Let's focus on the first problem only, as it would need to be solved
first anyway.  I haven't found anything that would allow me to do
it. There are a lot mechanisms that make it possible to restrict an
access during open():
- DAC
- ACL (controlled by hand or with uaccess)
- LSM (in general)
- device cgroups
But all of those can't do a thing when the device is already opened and
an application has a file descriptor.  I don't see such mechanism in
kernel sources either.

I do imagine that it would not be possible for every device to handle
such a thing (dri comes to mind) without breaking something (graphics
card state in dri example). But there is class of simple input/output
devices that would handle this without problems.

I did implement some proof-of-concept solution for an evdev driver by
allowing or disallowing events that go to evdev_client structure using
some arbitrary condition. But this is far from a generic solution.

My proof-of-concept is somewhat similar to this (I just found it):
http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-input/msg25547.html
Though a little bit wider in scope. But neither is flawless nor
generic.

Has anyone had any thoughts about a similar problem?


-- 
Regards
Havner
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel


[systemd-devel] Suspending access to opened/active /dev/nodes during application runtime

2014-03-07 Thread Lukasz Pawelczyk
Problem:
Has anyone thought about a mechanism to limit/remove an access to a
device during an application runtime? Meaning we have an application
that has an open file descriptor to some /dev/node and depending on
*something* it gains or looses the access to it gracefully (with or
without a notification, but without any fatal consequences).

Example:
LXC. Imagine we have 2 separate containers. Both running full operating
systems. Specifically with 2 X servers. Both running concurrently of
course. Both need the same input devices (e.g. we have just one mouse).
This creates a security problem when we want to have completely separate
environments. One container is active (being displayed on a monitor and
controlled with a mouse) while the other container runs evtest
/dev/input/something and grabs the secret password user typed in the
other.

Solutions:
The complete solution would comprise of 2 parts:
- a mechanism that would allow to temporally hide a device from an
open file descriptor.
- a mechanism for deciding whether application/process/namespace should
have an access to a specific device at a specific moment

Let's focus on the first problem only, as it would need to be solved
first anyway.  I haven't found anything that would allow me to do
it. There are a lot mechanisms that make it possible to restrict an
access during open():
- DAC
- ACL (controlled by hand or with uaccess)
- LSM (in general)
- device cgroups
But all of those can't do a thing when the device is already opened and
an application has a file descriptor.  I don't see such mechanism in
kernel sources either.

I do imagine that it would not be possible for every device to handle
such a thing (dri comes to mind) without breaking something (graphics
card state in dri example). But there is class of simple input/output
devices that would handle this without problems.

I did implement some proof-of-concept solution for an evdev driver by
allowing or disallowing events that go to evdev_client structure using
some arbitrary condition. But this is far from a generic solution.

My proof-of-concept is somewhat similar to this (I just found it):
http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-input/msg25547.html
Though a little bit wider in scope. But neither is flawless nor
generic.

Has anyone had any thoughts about a similar problem?


-- 
Regards
Havner
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel


Re: [systemd-devel] Suspending access to opened/active /dev/nodes during application runtime

2014-03-07 Thread Lukasz Pawelczyk

On 7 Mar 2014, at 20:09, Greg KH gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:

 On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 07:46:44PM +0100, Lukasz Pawelczyk wrote:
 Problem:
 Has anyone thought about a mechanism to limit/remove an access to a
 device during an application runtime? Meaning we have an application
 that has an open file descriptor to some /dev/node and depending on
 *something* it gains or looses the access to it gracefully (with or
 without a notification, but without any fatal consequences).
 
 Example:
 LXC. Imagine we have 2 separate containers. Both running full operating
 systems. Specifically with 2 X servers. Both running concurrently of
 course. Both need the same input devices (e.g. we have just one mouse).
 
 Stop right there.
 
 If they both need an input device, then they should use the shared
 input device stream, i.e. evdev.
 
 And it goes the same for every type of device the kernel is exposing to
 userspace, if you want to share them, then you need to work on
 changing the kernel to be able to handle shared devices.

I think you might have misunderstood me. They are using a shared input stream 
(evdev in this case). The problem is I don’t want them to eavesdrop on each 
other. So it’s not about making it to work. It’s about making them to work „in 
turns”.

 And odds are, you will get back a big as-if comment from the kernel
 developers, as for almost all devices, they can't be shared, for very
 good reasons.

Evdev devices can.


-- 
Regards,
Havner



___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel


Re: [systemd-devel] Suspending access to opened/active /dev/nodes during application runtime

2014-03-07 Thread Lukasz Pawelczyk

On 7 Mar 2014, at 20:24, Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de wrote:

 On Fri, 07.03.14 19:45, Lukasz Pawelczyk (hav...@gmail.com) wrote:
 
 Problem:
 Has anyone thought about a mechanism to limit/remove an access to a
 device during an application runtime? Meaning we have an application
 that has an open file descriptor to some /dev/node and depending on
 *something* it gains or looses the access to it gracefully (with or
 without a notification, but without any fatal consequences).
 
 logind can mute input devices as sessions are switched, to enable
 unpriviliged X11 and wayland compositors.

Would you please elaborate on this? Where is this mechanism? How does it work 
without kernel space support? Is there some kernel space support I’m not aware 
of?

 Example:
 LXC. Imagine we have 2 separate containers. Both running full operating
 systems. Specifically with 2 X servers. Both running concurrently of
 
 Well, devices are not namespaced on Linux (with the single exception of
 network devices). An X server needs device access, hence this doesn't
 fly at all.
 
 When you enumerate devices with libudev in a container they will never
 be marked as initialized and you do not get any udev hotplug events in
 containers, and you don#t have the host's udev db around, nor would it
 make any sense to you if you had. X11 and friends rely on udev
 however...
 
 Before you think about doing something like this, you need to fix the
 kernel to provide namespaced devices (good luck!)

Precisly! That’s the generic idea. I’m not for implementing it though at this 
moment. I just wanted to know whether anybody actually though about it or maybe 
someone is interested in starting such a work, etc.

 course. Both need the same input devices (e.g. we have just one mouse).
 This creates a security problem when we want to have completely separate
 environments. One container is active (being displayed on a monitor and
 controlled with a mouse) while the other container runs evtest
 /dev/input/something and grabs the secret password user typed in the
 other.
 
 logind can do this for you between sessions. But such a container setup
 will never work without proper device namespacing.

So how can it do it when there is no kernel support? You mean it could be doing 
this if the support were there?

 Solutions:
 The complete solution would comprise of 2 parts:
 - a mechanism that would allow to temporally hide a device from an
 open file descriptor.
 - a mechanism for deciding whether application/process/namespace should
 have an access to a specific device at a specific moment
 
 Well, there's no point in inventing any mechanisms like this, as long
 as devices are not namespaced in the kernel, so that userspace in
 containers can enumerate/probe/identify/... things correctly…

True. My point is about kernel space implementation. Like I wrote. I haven’t 
seen anything like this in kernel source and I’m well away it should be done 
there.
I would just like to know if anybody is interested in this, if anybody started 
or would like to start such a thing.

I do understand that systemd/logind would only provide a mechanism for 
determining who should have an access and who shouldn’t (or to be more specific 
it would utilize some kernel space configuration like cgroups). But the work 
itself has to be done in kernel space.

-- 
Regards,
Havner



___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel