Re: [PATCH v3] landlock: Add abstract unix socket connect restriction
Jann Horn <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | dev.linux.lists.outreachy,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-security-module,org.kernel.vger.netdev |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAG48ez3NvVnonOqKH4oRwRqbSOLO0p9djBqgvxVwn6gtGQBPcw@mail.gmail.com> |
Hi! Thanks for helping with making Landlock more comprehensive! On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 1:44 AM Tahera Fahimi <[email protected]> wrote: > Abstract unix sockets are used for local inter-process communications > without on a filesystem. Currently a sandboxed process can connect to a > socket outside of the sandboxed environment, since landlock has no > restriction for connecting to a unix socket in the abstract namespace. > Access to such sockets for a sandboxed process should be scoped the same > way ptrace is limited. This reminds me - from what I remember, Landlock also doesn't restrict access to filesystem-based unix sockets yet... I'm I'm right about that, we should probably at some point add code at some point to restrict that as part of the path-based filesystem access rules? (But to be clear, I'm not saying I expect you to do that as part of your patch, just commenting for context.) > Because of compatibility reasons and since landlock should be flexible, > we extend the user space interface by adding a new "scoped" field. This > field optionally contains a "LANDLOCK_SCOPED_ABSTRACT_UNIX_SOCKET" to > specify that the ruleset will deny any connection from within the > sandbox to its parents(i.e. any parent sandbox or non-sandbox processes) You call the feature "LANDLOCK_SCOPED_ABSTRACT_UNIX_SOCKET", but I don't see anything in this code that actually restricts it to abstract unix sockets (as opposed to path-based ones and unnamed ones, see the "Three types of address are distinguished" paragraph of https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/unix.7.html). If the feature is supposed to be limited to abstract unix sockets, I guess you'd maybe have to inspect the unix_sk(other)->addr, check that it's non-NULL, and then check that `unix_sk(other)->addr->name->sun_path[0] == 0`, similar to what unix_seq_show() does? (unix_seq_show() shows abstract sockets with an "@".) Separately, I wonder if it would be useful to have another mode for forbidding access to abstract unix sockets entirely; or alternatively to change the semantics of LANDLOCK_SCOPED_ABSTRACT_UNIX_SOCKET so that it also forbids access from outside the landlocked domain as was discussed elsewhere in the thread. If a landlocked process starts listening on something like "@/tmp/.X11-unix/X0", maybe X11 clients elsewhere on my system shouldn't be confused into connecting to that landlocked socket... [...] > +static bool sock_is_scoped(struct sock *const other) > +{ > + bool is_scoped = true; > + const struct landlock_ruleset *dom_other; > + const struct cred *cred_other; > + > + const struct landlock_ruleset *const dom = > + landlock_get_current_domain(); > + if (!dom) > + return true; > + > + lockdep_assert_held(&unix_sk(other)->lock); > + /* the credentials will not change */ > + cred_other = get_cred(other->sk_peer_cred); > + dom_other = landlock_cred(cred_other)->domain; > + is_scoped = domain_scope_le(dom, dom_other); > + put_cred(cred_other); You don't have to use get_cred()/put_cred() here; as the comment says, the credentials will not change, so we don't need to take another reference to them. > + return is_scoped; > +}