On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Stephen Smalley <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-07-11 at 17:00 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:25 PM, Stephen Smalley <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> > As systemd ramps up enabling NoNewPrivileges (either explicitly in
>> > service unit files or as a side effect of other security-related
>> > settings in service unit files), we're increasingly running afoul
>> > of
>> > its interactions with SELinux...
>>
>> We already talked about this in the other thread so I'll refrain from
>> repeating myself.
>>
>> > diff --git a/security/selinux/hooks.c b/security/selinux/hooks.c
>> > index 3a06afb..f0c11c2 100644
>> > --- a/security/selinux/hooks.c
>> > +++ b/security/selinux/hooks.c
>> > @@ -2326,24 +2326,37 @@ static int check_nnp_nosuid(const struct
>> > linux_binprm *bprm,
>> > return 0; /* No change in credentials */
>> >
>> > /*
>> > - * The only transitions we permit under NNP or nosuid
>> > - * are transitions to bounded SIDs, i.e. SIDs that are
>> > - * guaranteed to only be allowed a subset of the
>> > permissions
>> > - * of the current SID.
>> > + * If the policy enables the nnp_transition policy
>> > capability,
>> > + * then we permit transitions under NNP or nosuid if the
>> > + * policy explicitly allows nnp_transition permission
>> > between
>> > + * the old and new contexts.
>> > */
>> > - rc = security_bounded_transition(old_tsec->sid, new_tsec-
>> > >sid);
>> > - if (rc) {
>> > + if (selinux_policycap_nnptransition) {
>> > + rc = avc_has_perm(old_tsec->sid, new_tsec->sid,
>> > + SECCLASS_PROCESS,
>> > + PROCESS__NNP_TRANSITION, NULL);
>> > + if (!rc)
>> > + return 0;
>>
>> This is interesting, we had been talking about domain transitions
>> under NNP, but we never really discussed transitions under nosuid
>> mounts, and the motivation for this patch appears to be entirely
>> around NNP alone.
>
> Yes, I decided to keep NNP and nosuid handling consistent. Similar
> arguments apply; the current restriction on SELinux transitions on
> nosuid mounts forces users to make a choice between SELinux transitions
> and nosuid mounts, which can leave them less protected. That has been
> a common issue e.g. for httpd transitions on cgi scripts and the like.
I'm not arguing that decoupling the NNP/nosuid state and SELinux
domain transitions is a bad idea, it's a good idea, I'm just thinking
that providing some additional granularity by splitting NNP and nosuid
might be a good thing. However, the permission limitation clouds that
a bit; more below.
>> I think the policycap/permission approach is reasonable, but I wonder
>> if we should separate this into two permissions, e.g. process {
>> nnp_transition nosuid_transition }, especially since such a change in
>> the future would likely require another policycap?
>
> I was hoping to avoid that and keep the nnp/nosuid handling consistent.
> Also, we are out of process permissions after nnp_transition, so we
> can't do that without adding a process2 or similar class. Possibly we
> could name the capability and permission more generally to make it
> clearer that it affect both, but not sure what to suggest there
> (nnpnosuid_transition?).
While I think splitting the NNP/nosuid transition restrictions might
be a good idea under the new policy capability, I'm not sure it is
worth the cost of a "process2" object class.
With that in mind, let's do two things with this patch:
* Mention the nosuid restrictions in the patch description. It
doesn't need much text, but something would be good so we have
documentation in the git log.
* Let's pick a new permission name that is not specific to NNP or
nosuid. IMHO, nnpnosuid_transition is ... less than good.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure I'm much better at picking names; how
about "protected_transition"? "restricted_transition"?
"enable_transition"? "override_transition"?
--
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com
