[v8,4/6] security: Allow all LSMs to provide xattrs for inode_init_security hook

  From: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>

Currently, security_inode_init_security() supports only one LSM providing
an xattr and EVM calculating the HMAC on that xattr, plus other inode
metadata.

Allow all LSMs to provide one or multiple xattrs, by extending the security
blob reservation mechanism. Introduce the new lbs_xattr field of the
lsm_blob_sizes structure, so that each LSM can specify how many xattrs it
needs, and the LSM infrastructure knows how many xattr slots it should
allocate.

Dynamically allocate the xattrs array to be populated by LSMs with the
inode_init_security hook, and pass it to the latter instead of the
name/value/len triple. Update the documentation accordingly, and fix the
description of the xattr name, as it is not allocated anymore.

Since the LSM infrastructure, at initialization time, updates the number of
the requested xattrs provided by each LSM with a corresponding offset in
the security blob (in this case the xattr array), it makes straightforward
for an LSM to access the right position in the xattr array.

There is still the issue that an LSM might not fill the xattr, even if it
requests it (legitimate case, for example it might have been loaded but not
initialized with a policy). Since users of the xattr array (e.g. the
initxattrs() callbacks) detect the end of the xattr array by checking if
the xattr name is NULL, not filling an xattr would cause those users to
stop scanning xattrs prematurely.

Solve that issue by introducing security_check_compact_filled_xattrs(),
which does a basic check of the xattr array (if the xattr name is filled,
the xattr value should be too, and viceversa), and compacts the xattr array
by removing the holes.

An alternative solution would be to let users of the xattr array know the
number of elements of that array, so that they don't have to check the
termination. However, this seems more invasive, compared to a simple move
of few array elements.

security_check_compact_filled_xattrs() also determines how many xattrs in
the xattr array have been filled. If there is none, skip
evm_inode_init_security() and initxattrs(). Skipping the former also avoids
EVM to crash the kernel, as it is expecting a filled xattr.

Finally, adapt both SELinux and Smack to use the new definition of the
inode_init_security hook, and to correctly fill the designated slots in the
xattr array. For Smack, reserve space for the other defined xattrs although
they are not set yet in smack_inode_init_security().

Reported-by: Nicolas Bouchinet <nicolas.bouchinet@clip-os.org> (EVM crash)
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/Y1FTSIo+1x+4X0LS@archlinux/
Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
Reviewed-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
Reviewed-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
---
 include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h |   3 +-
 include/linux/lsm_hooks.h     |   1 +
 security/security.c           | 119 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
 security/selinux/hooks.c      |  19 ++++--
 security/smack/smack_lsm.c    |  33 ++++++----
 5 files changed, 137 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-)
  

On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 4:19 AM Roberto Sassu
<roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com> wrote:
>
> From: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
>
> Currently, security_inode_init_security() supports only one LSM providing
> an xattr and EVM calculating the HMAC on that xattr, plus other inode
> metadata.
>
> Allow all LSMs to provide one or multiple xattrs, by extending the security
> blob reservation mechanism. Introduce the new lbs_xattr field of the
> lsm_blob_sizes structure, so that each LSM can specify how many xattrs it
> needs, and the LSM infrastructure knows how many xattr slots it should
> allocate.
>
> Dynamically allocate the xattrs array to be populated by LSMs with the
> inode_init_security hook, and pass it to the latter instead of the
> name/value/len triple. Update the documentation accordingly, and fix the
> description of the xattr name, as it is not allocated anymore.
>
> Since the LSM infrastructure, at initialization time, updates the number of
> the requested xattrs provided by each LSM with a corresponding offset in
> the security blob (in this case the xattr array), it makes straightforward
> for an LSM to access the right position in the xattr array.
>
> There is still the issue that an LSM might not fill the xattr, even if it
> requests it (legitimate case, for example it might have been loaded but not
> initialized with a policy). Since users of the xattr array (e.g. the
> initxattrs() callbacks) detect the end of the xattr array by checking if
> the xattr name is NULL, not filling an xattr would cause those users to
> stop scanning xattrs prematurely.
>
> Solve that issue by introducing security_check_compact_filled_xattrs(),
> which does a basic check of the xattr array (if the xattr name is filled,
> the xattr value should be too, and viceversa), and compacts the xattr array
> by removing the holes.
>
> An alternative solution would be to let users of the xattr array know the
> number of elements of that array, so that they don't have to check the
> termination. However, this seems more invasive, compared to a simple move
> of few array elements.
>
> security_check_compact_filled_xattrs() also determines how many xattrs in
> the xattr array have been filled. If there is none, skip
> evm_inode_init_security() and initxattrs(). Skipping the former also avoids
> EVM to crash the kernel, as it is expecting a filled xattr.
>
> Finally, adapt both SELinux and Smack to use the new definition of the
> inode_init_security hook, and to correctly fill the designated slots in the
> xattr array. For Smack, reserve space for the other defined xattrs although
> they are not set yet in smack_inode_init_security().
>
> Reported-by: Nicolas Bouchinet <nicolas.bouchinet@clip-os.org> (EVM crash)
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/Y1FTSIo+1x+4X0LS@archlinux/
> Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
> Reviewed-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
> Reviewed-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
> ---
>  include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h |   3 +-
>  include/linux/lsm_hooks.h     |   1 +
>  security/security.c           | 119 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>  security/selinux/hooks.c      |  19 ++++--
>  security/smack/smack_lsm.c    |  33 ++++++----
>  5 files changed, 137 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h b/include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h
> index 6bb55e61e8e..b814955ae70 100644
> --- a/include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h
> +++ b/include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h
> @@ -112,8 +112,7 @@ LSM_HOOK(int, 0, path_notify, const struct path *path, u64 mask,
>  LSM_HOOK(int, 0, inode_alloc_security, struct inode *inode)
>  LSM_HOOK(void, LSM_RET_VOID, inode_free_security, struct inode *inode)
>  LSM_HOOK(int, 0, inode_init_security, struct inode *inode,
> -        struct inode *dir, const struct qstr *qstr, const char **name,
> -        void **value, size_t *len)
> +        struct inode *dir, const struct qstr *qstr, struct xattr *xattrs)
>  LSM_HOOK(int, 0, inode_init_security_anon, struct inode *inode,
>          const struct qstr *name, const struct inode *context_inode)
>  LSM_HOOK(int, 0, inode_create, struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry,
> diff --git a/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h b/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
> index c2be66c669a..75a2f85b49d 100644
> --- a/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
> +++ b/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
> @@ -63,6 +63,7 @@ struct lsm_blob_sizes {
>         int     lbs_ipc;
>         int     lbs_msg_msg;
>         int     lbs_task;
> +       int     lbs_xattr; /* number of xattr slots in new_xattrs array */

No need for the comment, we don't do it for the other fields.

>  };
>
>  /*
> diff --git a/security/security.c b/security/security.c
> index f4170efcddd..f1f5f62f7fa 100644
> --- a/security/security.c
> +++ b/security/security.c
> @@ -1579,6 +1579,52 @@ int security_dentry_create_files_as(struct dentry *dentry, int mode,
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(security_dentry_create_files_as);
>
> +/**
> + * security_check_compact_filled_xattrs - check xattrs and make array contiguous
> + * @xattrs: xattr array filled by LSMs
> + * @num_xattrs: length of xattr array
> + * @num_filled_xattrs: number of already processed xattrs
> + *
> + * Ensure that each xattr slot is correctly filled and close the gaps in the
> + * xattr array if an LSM didn't provide an xattr for which it asked space
> + * (legitimate case, it might have been loaded but not initialized). An LSM
> + * might request space in the xattr array for one or multiple xattrs. The LSM
> + * infrastructure ensures that all requests by LSMs are satisfied.
> + *
> + * Track the number of filled xattrs in @num_filled_xattrs, so that it is easy
> + * to determine whether the currently processed xattr is fine in its position
> + * (if all previous xattrs were filled) or it should be moved after the last
> + * filled xattr.
> + *
> + * Return: zero if all xattrs are valid, -EINVAL otherwise.
> + */
> +static int security_check_compact_filled_xattrs(struct xattr *xattrs,
> +                                               int num_xattrs,
> +                                               int *num_filled_xattrs)

That is one long name :)

Since you're making some other changes to this patch, can you rename
this to security_xattr_compact() or something like that?

> +{
> +       int i;
> +
> +       for (i = *num_filled_xattrs; i < num_xattrs; i++) {
> +               if ((!xattrs[i].name && xattrs[i].value) ||
> +                   (xattrs[i].name && !xattrs[i].value))
> +                       return -EINVAL;
> +
> +               if (!xattrs[i].name)
> +                       continue;
> +
> +               if (i == *num_filled_xattrs) {
> +                       (*num_filled_xattrs)++;
> +                       continue;
> +               }
> +
> +               memcpy(xattrs + (*num_filled_xattrs)++, xattrs + i,
> +                      sizeof(*xattrs));
> +               memset(xattrs + i, 0, sizeof(*xattrs));
> +       }
> +
> +       return 0;
> +}
> +
>  /**
>   * security_inode_init_security() - Initialize an inode's LSM context
>   * @inode: the inode
> @@ -1591,9 +1637,13 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(security_dentry_create_files_as);
>   * created inode and set up the incore security field for the new inode.  This
>   * hook is called by the fs code as part of the inode creation transaction and
>   * provides for atomic labeling of the inode, unlike the post_create/mkdir/...
> - * hooks called by the VFS.  The hook function is expected to allocate the name
> - * and value via kmalloc, with the caller being responsible for calling kfree
> - * after using them.  If the security module does not use security attributes
> + * hooks called by the VFS.  The hook function is expected to populate the
> + * @xattrs array, depending on how many xattrs have been specified by the
> + * security module in the lbs_xattr field of the lsm_blob_sizes structure.  For
> + * each array element, the hook function is expected to set ->name to the
> + * attribute name suffix (e.g. selinux), to allocate ->value (will be freed by
> + * the caller) and set it to the attribute value, to set ->value_len to the
> + * length of the value.  If the security module does not use security attributes
>   * or does not wish to put a security attribute on this particular inode, then
>   * it should return -EOPNOTSUPP to skip this processing.
>   *
> @@ -1604,33 +1654,66 @@ int security_inode_init_security(struct inode *inode, struct inode *dir,
>                                  const struct qstr *qstr,
>                                  const initxattrs initxattrs, void *fs_data)
>  {
> -       struct xattr new_xattrs[MAX_LSM_EVM_XATTR + 1];
> -       struct xattr *lsm_xattr, *evm_xattr, *xattr;
> -       int ret;
> +       struct security_hook_list *P;
> +       struct xattr *new_xattrs;
> +       struct xattr *xattr;
> +       int ret = -EOPNOTSUPP, num_filled_xattrs = 0;
>
>         if (unlikely(IS_PRIVATE(inode)))
>                 return 0;
>
> +       if (!blob_sizes.lbs_xattr)
> +               return 0;
> +
>         if (!initxattrs)
>                 return call_int_hook(inode_init_security, -EOPNOTSUPP, inode,
> -                                    dir, qstr, NULL, NULL, NULL);
> -       memset(new_xattrs, 0, sizeof(new_xattrs));
> -       lsm_xattr = new_xattrs;
> -       ret = call_int_hook(inode_init_security, -EOPNOTSUPP, inode, dir, qstr,
> -                           &lsm_xattr->name,
> -                           &lsm_xattr->value,
> -                           &lsm_xattr->value_len);
> -       if (ret)
> +                                   dir, qstr, NULL);
> +       /* Allocate +1 for EVM and +1 as terminator. */
> +       new_xattrs = kcalloc(blob_sizes.lbs_xattr + 2, sizeof(*new_xattrs),
> +                            GFP_NOFS);
> +       if (!new_xattrs)
> +               return -ENOMEM;
> +
> +       hlist_for_each_entry(P, &security_hook_heads.inode_init_security,
> +                            list) {
> +               ret = P->hook.inode_init_security(inode, dir, qstr, new_xattrs);
> +               if (ret && ret != -EOPNOTSUPP)
> +                       goto out;
> +               /*
> +                * As documented in lsm_hooks.h, -EOPNOTSUPP in this context
> +                * means that the LSM is not willing to provide an xattr, not
> +                * that it wants to signal an error. Thus, continue to invoke
> +                * the remaining LSMs.
> +                */
> +               if (ret == -EOPNOTSUPP)
> +                       continue;
> +               /*
> +                * As the number of xattrs reserved by LSMs is not directly
> +                * available, directly use the total number blob_sizes.lbs_xattr
> +                * to keep the code simple, while being not the most efficient
> +                * way.
> +                */

Is there a good reason why the LSM can't return the number of xattrs
it is adding to the xattr array?  It seems like it should be fairly
trivial for the individual LSMs to determine and it could save a lot
of work.  However, given we're at v8 on this patchset I'm sure I'm
missing something obvious, can you help me understand why the idea
above is crazy stupid? ;)

> +               ret = security_check_compact_filled_xattrs(new_xattrs,
> +                                                          blob_sizes.lbs_xattr,
> +                                                          &num_filled_xattrs);
> +               if (ret < 0) {
> +                       ret = -ENOMEM;
> +                       goto out;
> +               }
> +       }
> +
> +       if (!num_filled_xattrs)
>                 goto out;
>
> -       evm_xattr = lsm_xattr + 1;
> -       ret = evm_inode_init_security(inode, lsm_xattr, evm_xattr);
> +       ret = evm_inode_init_security(inode, new_xattrs,
> +                                     new_xattrs + num_filled_xattrs);
>         if (ret)
>                 goto out;
>         ret = initxattrs(inode, new_xattrs, fs_data);
>  out:
>         for (xattr = new_xattrs; xattr->value != NULL; xattr++)
>                 kfree(xattr->value);
> +       kfree(new_xattrs);
>         return (ret == -EOPNOTSUPP) ? 0 : ret;
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(security_inode_init_security);
> diff --git a/security/selinux/hooks.c b/security/selinux/hooks.c
> index 9a5bdfc2131..3e4308dd336 100644
> --- a/security/selinux/hooks.c
> +++ b/security/selinux/hooks.c
> @@ -104,6 +104,8 @@
>  #include "audit.h"
>  #include "avc_ss.h"
>
> +#define SELINUX_INODE_INIT_XATTRS 1
> +
>  struct selinux_state selinux_state;
>
>  /* SECMARK reference count */
> @@ -2868,11 +2870,11 @@ static int selinux_dentry_create_files_as(struct dentry *dentry, int mode,
>
>  static int selinux_inode_init_security(struct inode *inode, struct inode *dir,
>                                        const struct qstr *qstr,
> -                                      const char **name,
> -                                      void **value, size_t *len)
> +                                      struct xattr *xattrs)
>  {
>         const struct task_security_struct *tsec = selinux_cred(current_cred());
>         struct superblock_security_struct *sbsec;
> +       struct xattr *xattr = NULL;
>         u32 newsid, clen;
>         int rc;
>         char *context;
> @@ -2899,16 +2901,18 @@ static int selinux_inode_init_security(struct inode *inode, struct inode *dir,
>             !(sbsec->flags & SBLABEL_MNT))
>                 return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>
> -       if (name)
> -               *name = XATTR_SELINUX_SUFFIX;
> +       if (xattrs)
> +               xattr = xattrs + selinux_blob_sizes.lbs_xattr;

Please abstract that away to an inline function similar to
selinux_cred(), selinux_file(), selinux_inode(), etc.

> +       if (xattr) {
> +               xattr->name = XATTR_SELINUX_SUFFIX;

I'm guessing the xattr->name assignment is always done, regardless of
if security_sid_to_context_force() is successful, due to the -EINVAL
check in security_check_compact_filled_xattrs()?  If yes, it would be
good to make note of that here in the code.  If not, it would be nice
to move this down the function to go with the other xattr->XXX
assignments, unless there is another reason for its placement that I'm
missing.

> -       if (value && len) {
>                 rc = security_sid_to_context_force(&selinux_state, newsid,
>                                                    &context, &clen);
>                 if (rc)
>                         return rc;
> -               *value = context;
> -               *len = clen;
> +               xattr->value = context;
> +               xattr->value_len = clen;
>         }
>
>         return 0;
> @@ -6918,6 +6922,7 @@ struct lsm_blob_sizes selinux_blob_sizes __lsm_ro_after_init = {
>         .lbs_ipc = sizeof(struct ipc_security_struct),
>         .lbs_msg_msg = sizeof(struct msg_security_struct),
>         .lbs_superblock = sizeof(struct superblock_security_struct),
> +       .lbs_xattr = SELINUX_INODE_INIT_XATTRS,
>  };
>
>  #ifdef CONFIG_PERF_EVENTS
> diff --git a/security/smack/smack_lsm.c b/security/smack/smack_lsm.c
> index cfcbb748da2..c8cf8df268b 100644
> --- a/security/smack/smack_lsm.c
> +++ b/security/smack/smack_lsm.c
> @@ -52,6 +52,15 @@
>  #define SMK_RECEIVING  1
>  #define SMK_SENDING    2
>
> +/*
> + * Smack uses multiple xattrs.
> + * SMACK64 - for access control, SMACK64EXEC - label for the program,
> + * SMACK64MMAP - controls library loading,
> + * SMACK64TRANSMUTE - label initialization,
> + * Not saved on files - SMACK64IPIN and SMACK64IPOUT
> + */
> +#define SMACK_INODE_INIT_XATTRS 4
> +
>  #ifdef SMACK_IPV6_PORT_LABELING
>  static DEFINE_MUTEX(smack_ipv6_lock);
>  static LIST_HEAD(smk_ipv6_port_list);
> @@ -939,26 +948,27 @@ static int smack_inode_alloc_security(struct inode *inode)
>   * @inode: the newly created inode
>   * @dir: containing directory object
>   * @qstr: unused
> - * @name: where to put the attribute name
> - * @value: where to put the attribute value
> - * @len: where to put the length of the attribute
> + * @xattrs: where to put the attributes
>   *
>   * Returns 0 if it all works out, -ENOMEM if there's no memory
>   */
>  static int smack_inode_init_security(struct inode *inode, struct inode *dir,
> -                                    const struct qstr *qstr, const char **name,
> -                                    void **value, size_t *len)
> +                                    const struct qstr *qstr,
> +                                    struct xattr *xattrs)
>  {
>         struct inode_smack *issp = smack_inode(inode);
>         struct smack_known *skp = smk_of_current();
>         struct smack_known *isp = smk_of_inode(inode);
>         struct smack_known *dsp = smk_of_inode(dir);
> +       struct xattr *xattr = NULL;
>         int may;
>
> -       if (name)
> -               *name = XATTR_SMACK_SUFFIX;
> +       if (xattrs)
> +               xattr = xattrs + smack_blob_sizes.lbs_xattr;
> +
> +       if (xattr) {
> +               xattr->name = XATTR_SMACK_SUFFIX;
>
> -       if (value && len) {
>                 rcu_read_lock();
>                 may = smk_access_entry(skp->smk_known, dsp->smk_known,
>                                        &skp->smk_rules);
> @@ -976,11 +986,11 @@ static int smack_inode_init_security(struct inode *inode, struct inode *dir,
>                         issp->smk_flags |= SMK_INODE_CHANGED;
>                 }
>
> -               *value = kstrdup(isp->smk_known, GFP_NOFS);
> -               if (*value == NULL)
> +               xattr->value = kstrdup(isp->smk_known, GFP_NOFS);
> +               if (xattr->value == NULL)
>                         return -ENOMEM;
>
> -               *len = strlen(isp->smk_known);
> +               xattr->value_len = strlen(isp->smk_known);
>         }
>
>         return 0;
> @@ -4854,6 +4864,7 @@ struct lsm_blob_sizes smack_blob_sizes __lsm_ro_after_init = {
>         .lbs_ipc = sizeof(struct smack_known *),
>         .lbs_msg_msg = sizeof(struct smack_known *),
>         .lbs_superblock = sizeof(struct superblock_smack),
> +       .lbs_xattr = SMACK_INODE_INIT_XATTRS,
>  };
>
>  static struct security_hook_list smack_hooks[] __lsm_ro_after_init = {
> --
> 2.25.1
  

On 3/23/2023 5:09 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 4:19 AM Roberto Sassu
> <roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com> wrote:
>> From: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
>>
>> Currently, security_inode_init_security() supports only one LSM providing
>> an xattr and EVM calculating the HMAC on that xattr, plus other inode
>> metadata.
>>
>> Allow all LSMs to provide one or multiple xattrs, by extending the security
>> blob reservation mechanism. Introduce the new lbs_xattr field of the
>> lsm_blob_sizes structure, so that each LSM can specify how many xattrs it
>> needs, and the LSM infrastructure knows how many xattr slots it should
>> allocate.
>>
>> Dynamically allocate the xattrs array to be populated by LSMs with the
>> inode_init_security hook, and pass it to the latter instead of the
>> name/value/len triple. Update the documentation accordingly, and fix the
>> description of the xattr name, as it is not allocated anymore.
>>
>> Since the LSM infrastructure, at initialization time, updates the number of
>> the requested xattrs provided by each LSM with a corresponding offset in
>> the security blob (in this case the xattr array), it makes straightforward
>> for an LSM to access the right position in the xattr array.
>>
>> There is still the issue that an LSM might not fill the xattr, even if it
>> requests it (legitimate case, for example it might have been loaded but not
>> initialized with a policy). Since users of the xattr array (e.g. the
>> initxattrs() callbacks) detect the end of the xattr array by checking if
>> the xattr name is NULL, not filling an xattr would cause those users to
>> stop scanning xattrs prematurely.
>>
>> Solve that issue by introducing security_check_compact_filled_xattrs(),
>> which does a basic check of the xattr array (if the xattr name is filled,
>> the xattr value should be too, and viceversa), and compacts the xattr array
>> by removing the holes.
>>
>> An alternative solution would be to let users of the xattr array know the
>> number of elements of that array, so that they don't have to check the
>> termination. However, this seems more invasive, compared to a simple move
>> of few array elements.
>>
>> security_check_compact_filled_xattrs() also determines how many xattrs in
>> the xattr array have been filled. If there is none, skip
>> evm_inode_init_security() and initxattrs(). Skipping the former also avoids
>> EVM to crash the kernel, as it is expecting a filled xattr.
>>
>> Finally, adapt both SELinux and Smack to use the new definition of the
>> inode_init_security hook, and to correctly fill the designated slots in the
>> xattr array. For Smack, reserve space for the other defined xattrs although
>> they are not set yet in smack_inode_init_security().
>>
>> Reported-by: Nicolas Bouchinet <nicolas.bouchinet@clip-os.org> (EVM crash)
>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/Y1FTSIo+1x+4X0LS@archlinux/
>> Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
>> ---
>>  include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h |   3 +-
>>  include/linux/lsm_hooks.h     |   1 +
>>  security/security.c           | 119 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>>  security/selinux/hooks.c      |  19 ++++--
>>  security/smack/smack_lsm.c    |  33 ++++++----
>>  5 files changed, 137 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h b/include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h
>> index 6bb55e61e8e..b814955ae70 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h
>> @@ -112,8 +112,7 @@ LSM_HOOK(int, 0, path_notify, const struct path *path, u64 mask,
>>  LSM_HOOK(int, 0, inode_alloc_security, struct inode *inode)
>>  LSM_HOOK(void, LSM_RET_VOID, inode_free_security, struct inode *inode)
>>  LSM_HOOK(int, 0, inode_init_security, struct inode *inode,
>> -        struct inode *dir, const struct qstr *qstr, const char **name,
>> -        void **value, size_t *len)
>> +        struct inode *dir, const struct qstr *qstr, struct xattr *xattrs)
>>  LSM_HOOK(int, 0, inode_init_security_anon, struct inode *inode,
>>          const struct qstr *name, const struct inode *context_inode)
>>  LSM_HOOK(int, 0, inode_create, struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry,
>> diff --git a/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h b/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
>> index c2be66c669a..75a2f85b49d 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
>> @@ -63,6 +63,7 @@ struct lsm_blob_sizes {
>>         int     lbs_ipc;
>>         int     lbs_msg_msg;
>>         int     lbs_task;
>> +       int     lbs_xattr; /* number of xattr slots in new_xattrs array */
> No need for the comment, we don't do it for the other fields.

I asked for the comment. lbs_xattr is the number of entries, which is
different from the other fields. The other fields contain blob sizes in
bytes. Inconsistent behavior should be noted.

>
>>  };
>>
>>  /*
>> diff --git a/security/security.c b/security/security.c
>> index f4170efcddd..f1f5f62f7fa 100644
>> --- a/security/security.c
>> +++ b/security/security.c
>> @@ -1579,6 +1579,52 @@ int security_dentry_create_files_as(struct dentry *dentry, int mode,
>>  }
>>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(security_dentry_create_files_as);
>>
>> +/**
>> + * security_check_compact_filled_xattrs - check xattrs and make array contiguous
>> + * @xattrs: xattr array filled by LSMs
>> + * @num_xattrs: length of xattr array
>> + * @num_filled_xattrs: number of already processed xattrs
>> + *
>> + * Ensure that each xattr slot is correctly filled and close the gaps in the
>> + * xattr array if an LSM didn't provide an xattr for which it asked space
>> + * (legitimate case, it might have been loaded but not initialized). An LSM
>> + * might request space in the xattr array for one or multiple xattrs. The LSM
>> + * infrastructure ensures that all requests by LSMs are satisfied.
>> + *
>> + * Track the number of filled xattrs in @num_filled_xattrs, so that it is easy
>> + * to determine whether the currently processed xattr is fine in its position
>> + * (if all previous xattrs were filled) or it should be moved after the last
>> + * filled xattr.
>> + *
>> + * Return: zero if all xattrs are valid, -EINVAL otherwise.
>> + */
>> +static int security_check_compact_filled_xattrs(struct xattr *xattrs,
>> +                                               int num_xattrs,
>> +                                               int *num_filled_xattrs)
> That is one long name :)
>
> Since you're making some other changes to this patch, can you rename
> this to security_xattr_compact() or something like that?
>
>> +{
>> +       int i;
>> +
>> +       for (i = *num_filled_xattrs; i < num_xattrs; i++) {
>> +               if ((!xattrs[i].name && xattrs[i].value) ||
>> +                   (xattrs[i].name && !xattrs[i].value))
>> +                       return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> +               if (!xattrs[i].name)
>> +                       continue;
>> +
>> +               if (i == *num_filled_xattrs) {
>> +                       (*num_filled_xattrs)++;
>> +                       continue;
>> +               }
>> +
>> +               memcpy(xattrs + (*num_filled_xattrs)++, xattrs + i,
>> +                      sizeof(*xattrs));
>> +               memset(xattrs + i, 0, sizeof(*xattrs));
>> +       }
>> +
>> +       return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>>  /**
>>   * security_inode_init_security() - Initialize an inode's LSM context
>>   * @inode: the inode
>> @@ -1591,9 +1637,13 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(security_dentry_create_files_as);
>>   * created inode and set up the incore security field for the new inode.  This
>>   * hook is called by the fs code as part of the inode creation transaction and
>>   * provides for atomic labeling of the inode, unlike the post_create/mkdir/...
>> - * hooks called by the VFS.  The hook function is expected to allocate the name
>> - * and value via kmalloc, with the caller being responsible for calling kfree
>> - * after using them.  If the security module does not use security attributes
>> + * hooks called by the VFS.  The hook function is expected to populate the
>> + * @xattrs array, depending on how many xattrs have been specified by the
>> + * security module in the lbs_xattr field of the lsm_blob_sizes structure.  For
>> + * each array element, the hook function is expected to set ->name to the
>> + * attribute name suffix (e.g. selinux), to allocate ->value (will be freed by
>> + * the caller) and set it to the attribute value, to set ->value_len to the
>> + * length of the value.  If the security module does not use security attributes
>>   * or does not wish to put a security attribute on this particular inode, then
>>   * it should return -EOPNOTSUPP to skip this processing.
>>   *
>> @@ -1604,33 +1654,66 @@ int security_inode_init_security(struct inode *inode, struct inode *dir,
>>                                  const struct qstr *qstr,
>>                                  const initxattrs initxattrs, void *fs_data)
>>  {
>> -       struct xattr new_xattrs[MAX_LSM_EVM_XATTR + 1];
>> -       struct xattr *lsm_xattr, *evm_xattr, *xattr;
>> -       int ret;
>> +       struct security_hook_list *P;
>> +       struct xattr *new_xattrs;
>> +       struct xattr *xattr;
>> +       int ret = -EOPNOTSUPP, num_filled_xattrs = 0;
>>
>>         if (unlikely(IS_PRIVATE(inode)))
>>                 return 0;
>>
>> +       if (!blob_sizes.lbs_xattr)
>> +               return 0;
>> +
>>         if (!initxattrs)
>>                 return call_int_hook(inode_init_security, -EOPNOTSUPP, inode,
>> -                                    dir, qstr, NULL, NULL, NULL);
>> -       memset(new_xattrs, 0, sizeof(new_xattrs));
>> -       lsm_xattr = new_xattrs;
>> -       ret = call_int_hook(inode_init_security, -EOPNOTSUPP, inode, dir, qstr,
>> -                           &lsm_xattr->name,
>> -                           &lsm_xattr->value,
>> -                           &lsm_xattr->value_len);
>> -       if (ret)
>> +                                   dir, qstr, NULL);
>> +       /* Allocate +1 for EVM and +1 as terminator. */
>> +       new_xattrs = kcalloc(blob_sizes.lbs_xattr + 2, sizeof(*new_xattrs),
>> +                            GFP_NOFS);
>> +       if (!new_xattrs)
>> +               return -ENOMEM;
>> +
>> +       hlist_for_each_entry(P, &security_hook_heads.inode_init_security,
>> +                            list) {
>> +               ret = P->hook.inode_init_security(inode, dir, qstr, new_xattrs);
>> +               if (ret && ret != -EOPNOTSUPP)
>> +                       goto out;
>> +               /*
>> +                * As documented in lsm_hooks.h, -EOPNOTSUPP in this context
>> +                * means that the LSM is not willing to provide an xattr, not
>> +                * that it wants to signal an error. Thus, continue to invoke
>> +                * the remaining LSMs.
>> +                */
>> +               if (ret == -EOPNOTSUPP)
>> +                       continue;
>> +               /*
>> +                * As the number of xattrs reserved by LSMs is not directly
>> +                * available, directly use the total number blob_sizes.lbs_xattr
>> +                * to keep the code simple, while being not the most efficient
>> +                * way.
>> +                */
> Is there a good reason why the LSM can't return the number of xattrs
> it is adding to the xattr array?  It seems like it should be fairly
> trivial for the individual LSMs to determine and it could save a lot
> of work.  However, given we're at v8 on this patchset I'm sure I'm
> missing something obvious, can you help me understand why the idea
> above is crazy stupid? ;)
>
>> +               ret = security_check_compact_filled_xattrs(new_xattrs,
>> +                                                          blob_sizes.lbs_xattr,
>> +                                                          &num_filled_xattrs);
>> +               if (ret < 0) {
>> +                       ret = -ENOMEM;
>> +                       goto out;
>> +               }
>> +       }
>> +
>> +       if (!num_filled_xattrs)
>>                 goto out;
>>
>> -       evm_xattr = lsm_xattr + 1;
>> -       ret = evm_inode_init_security(inode, lsm_xattr, evm_xattr);
>> +       ret = evm_inode_init_security(inode, new_xattrs,
>> +                                     new_xattrs + num_filled_xattrs);
>>         if (ret)
>>                 goto out;
>>         ret = initxattrs(inode, new_xattrs, fs_data);
>>  out:
>>         for (xattr = new_xattrs; xattr->value != NULL; xattr++)
>>                 kfree(xattr->value);
>> +       kfree(new_xattrs);
>>         return (ret == -EOPNOTSUPP) ? 0 : ret;
>>  }
>>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(security_inode_init_security);
>> diff --git a/security/selinux/hooks.c b/security/selinux/hooks.c
>> index 9a5bdfc2131..3e4308dd336 100644
>> --- a/security/selinux/hooks.c
>> +++ b/security/selinux/hooks.c
>> @@ -104,6 +104,8 @@
>>  #include "audit.h"
>>  #include "avc_ss.h"
>>
>> +#define SELINUX_INODE_INIT_XATTRS 1
>> +
>>  struct selinux_state selinux_state;
>>
>>  /* SECMARK reference count */
>> @@ -2868,11 +2870,11 @@ static int selinux_dentry_create_files_as(struct dentry *dentry, int mode,
>>
>>  static int selinux_inode_init_security(struct inode *inode, struct inode *dir,
>>                                        const struct qstr *qstr,
>> -                                      const char **name,
>> -                                      void **value, size_t *len)
>> +                                      struct xattr *xattrs)
>>  {
>>         const struct task_security_struct *tsec = selinux_cred(current_cred());
>>         struct superblock_security_struct *sbsec;
>> +       struct xattr *xattr = NULL;
>>         u32 newsid, clen;
>>         int rc;
>>         char *context;
>> @@ -2899,16 +2901,18 @@ static int selinux_inode_init_security(struct inode *inode, struct inode *dir,
>>             !(sbsec->flags & SBLABEL_MNT))
>>                 return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>>
>> -       if (name)
>> -               *name = XATTR_SELINUX_SUFFIX;
>> +       if (xattrs)
>> +               xattr = xattrs + selinux_blob_sizes.lbs_xattr;
> Please abstract that away to an inline function similar to
> selinux_cred(), selinux_file(), selinux_inode(), etc.
>
>> +       if (xattr) {
>> +               xattr->name = XATTR_SELINUX_SUFFIX;
> I'm guessing the xattr->name assignment is always done, regardless of
> if security_sid_to_context_force() is successful, due to the -EINVAL
> check in security_check_compact_filled_xattrs()?  If yes, it would be
> good to make note of that here in the code.  If not, it would be nice
> to move this down the function to go with the other xattr->XXX
> assignments, unless there is another reason for its placement that I'm
> missing.
>
>> -       if (value && len) {
>>                 rc = security_sid_to_context_force(&selinux_state, newsid,
>>                                                    &context, &clen);
>>                 if (rc)
>>                         return rc;
>> -               *value = context;
>> -               *len = clen;
>> +               xattr->value = context;
>> +               xattr->value_len = clen;
>>         }
>>
>>         return 0;
>> @@ -6918,6 +6922,7 @@ struct lsm_blob_sizes selinux_blob_sizes __lsm_ro_after_init = {
>>         .lbs_ipc = sizeof(struct ipc_security_struct),
>>         .lbs_msg_msg = sizeof(struct msg_security_struct),
>>         .lbs_superblock = sizeof(struct superblock_security_struct),
>> +       .lbs_xattr = SELINUX_INODE_INIT_XATTRS,
>>  };
>>
>>  #ifdef CONFIG_PERF_EVENTS
>> diff --git a/security/smack/smack_lsm.c b/security/smack/smack_lsm.c
>> index cfcbb748da2..c8cf8df268b 100644
>> --- a/security/smack/smack_lsm.c
>> +++ b/security/smack/smack_lsm.c
>> @@ -52,6 +52,15 @@
>>  #define SMK_RECEIVING  1
>>  #define SMK_SENDING    2
>>
>> +/*
>> + * Smack uses multiple xattrs.
>> + * SMACK64 - for access control, SMACK64EXEC - label for the program,
>> + * SMACK64MMAP - controls library loading,
>> + * SMACK64TRANSMUTE - label initialization,
>> + * Not saved on files - SMACK64IPIN and SMACK64IPOUT
>> + */
>> +#define SMACK_INODE_INIT_XATTRS 4
>> +
>>  #ifdef SMACK_IPV6_PORT_LABELING
>>  static DEFINE_MUTEX(smack_ipv6_lock);
>>  static LIST_HEAD(smk_ipv6_port_list);
>> @@ -939,26 +948,27 @@ static int smack_inode_alloc_security(struct inode *inode)
>>   * @inode: the newly created inode
>>   * @dir: containing directory object
>>   * @qstr: unused
>> - * @name: where to put the attribute name
>> - * @value: where to put the attribute value
>> - * @len: where to put the length of the attribute
>> + * @xattrs: where to put the attributes
>>   *
>>   * Returns 0 if it all works out, -ENOMEM if there's no memory
>>   */
>>  static int smack_inode_init_security(struct inode *inode, struct inode *dir,
>> -                                    const struct qstr *qstr, const char **name,
>> -                                    void **value, size_t *len)
>> +                                    const struct qstr *qstr,
>> +                                    struct xattr *xattrs)
>>  {
>>         struct inode_smack *issp = smack_inode(inode);
>>         struct smack_known *skp = smk_of_current();
>>         struct smack_known *isp = smk_of_inode(inode);
>>         struct smack_known *dsp = smk_of_inode(dir);
>> +       struct xattr *xattr = NULL;
>>         int may;
>>
>> -       if (name)
>> -               *name = XATTR_SMACK_SUFFIX;
>> +       if (xattrs)
>> +               xattr = xattrs + smack_blob_sizes.lbs_xattr;
>> +
>> +       if (xattr) {
>> +               xattr->name = XATTR_SMACK_SUFFIX;
>>
>> -       if (value && len) {
>>                 rcu_read_lock();
>>                 may = smk_access_entry(skp->smk_known, dsp->smk_known,
>>                                        &skp->smk_rules);
>> @@ -976,11 +986,11 @@ static int smack_inode_init_security(struct inode *inode, struct inode *dir,
>>                         issp->smk_flags |= SMK_INODE_CHANGED;
>>                 }
>>
>> -               *value = kstrdup(isp->smk_known, GFP_NOFS);
>> -               if (*value == NULL)
>> +               xattr->value = kstrdup(isp->smk_known, GFP_NOFS);
>> +               if (xattr->value == NULL)
>>                         return -ENOMEM;
>>
>> -               *len = strlen(isp->smk_known);
>> +               xattr->value_len = strlen(isp->smk_known);
>>         }
>>
>>         return 0;
>> @@ -4854,6 +4864,7 @@ struct lsm_blob_sizes smack_blob_sizes __lsm_ro_after_init = {
>>         .lbs_ipc = sizeof(struct smack_known *),
>>         .lbs_msg_msg = sizeof(struct smack_known *),
>>         .lbs_superblock = sizeof(struct superblock_smack),
>> +       .lbs_xattr = SMACK_INODE_INIT_XATTRS,
>>  };
>>
>>  static struct security_hook_list smack_hooks[] __lsm_ro_after_init = {
>> --
>> 2.25.1
  

On Thu, 2023-03-23 at 20:09 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 4:19 AM Roberto Sassu
> <roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com> wrote:
> > From: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
> > 
> > Currently, security_inode_init_security() supports only one LSM providing
> > an xattr and EVM calculating the HMAC on that xattr, plus other inode
> > metadata.
> > 
> > Allow all LSMs to provide one or multiple xattrs, by extending the security
> > blob reservation mechanism. Introduce the new lbs_xattr field of the
> > lsm_blob_sizes structure, so that each LSM can specify how many xattrs it
> > needs, and the LSM infrastructure knows how many xattr slots it should
> > allocate.
> > 
> > Dynamically allocate the xattrs array to be populated by LSMs with the
> > inode_init_security hook, and pass it to the latter instead of the
> > name/value/len triple. Update the documentation accordingly, and fix the
> > description of the xattr name, as it is not allocated anymore.
> > 
> > Since the LSM infrastructure, at initialization time, updates the number of
> > the requested xattrs provided by each LSM with a corresponding offset in
> > the security blob (in this case the xattr array), it makes straightforward
> > for an LSM to access the right position in the xattr array.
> > 
> > There is still the issue that an LSM might not fill the xattr, even if it
> > requests it (legitimate case, for example it might have been loaded but not
> > initialized with a policy). Since users of the xattr array (e.g. the
> > initxattrs() callbacks) detect the end of the xattr array by checking if
> > the xattr name is NULL, not filling an xattr would cause those users to
> > stop scanning xattrs prematurely.
> > 
> > Solve that issue by introducing security_check_compact_filled_xattrs(),
> > which does a basic check of the xattr array (if the xattr name is filled,
> > the xattr value should be too, and viceversa), and compacts the xattr array
> > by removing the holes.
> > 
> > An alternative solution would be to let users of the xattr array know the
> > number of elements of that array, so that they don't have to check the
> > termination. However, this seems more invasive, compared to a simple move
> > of few array elements.
> > 
> > security_check_compact_filled_xattrs() also determines how many xattrs in
> > the xattr array have been filled. If there is none, skip
> > evm_inode_init_security() and initxattrs(). Skipping the former also avoids
> > EVM to crash the kernel, as it is expecting a filled xattr.
> > 
> > Finally, adapt both SELinux and Smack to use the new definition of the
> > inode_init_security hook, and to correctly fill the designated slots in the
> > xattr array. For Smack, reserve space for the other defined xattrs although
> > they are not set yet in smack_inode_init_security().
> > 
> > Reported-by: Nicolas Bouchinet <nicolas.bouchinet@clip-os.org> (EVM crash)
> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/Y1FTSIo+1x+4X0LS@archlinux/
> > Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
> > ---
> >  include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h |   3 +-
> >  include/linux/lsm_hooks.h     |   1 +
> >  security/security.c           | 119 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> >  security/selinux/hooks.c      |  19 ++++--
> >  security/smack/smack_lsm.c    |  33 ++++++----
> >  5 files changed, 137 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h b/include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h
> > index 6bb55e61e8e..b814955ae70 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h
> > @@ -112,8 +112,7 @@ LSM_HOOK(int, 0, path_notify, const struct path *path, u64 mask,
> >  LSM_HOOK(int, 0, inode_alloc_security, struct inode *inode)
> >  LSM_HOOK(void, LSM_RET_VOID, inode_free_security, struct inode *inode)
> >  LSM_HOOK(int, 0, inode_init_security, struct inode *inode,
> > -        struct inode *dir, const struct qstr *qstr, const char **name,
> > -        void **value, size_t *len)
> > +        struct inode *dir, const struct qstr *qstr, struct xattr *xattrs)
> >  LSM_HOOK(int, 0, inode_init_security_anon, struct inode *inode,
> >          const struct qstr *name, const struct inode *context_inode)
> >  LSM_HOOK(int, 0, inode_create, struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry,
> > diff --git a/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h b/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
> > index c2be66c669a..75a2f85b49d 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
> > @@ -63,6 +63,7 @@ struct lsm_blob_sizes {
> >         int     lbs_ipc;
> >         int     lbs_msg_msg;
> >         int     lbs_task;
> > +       int     lbs_xattr; /* number of xattr slots in new_xattrs array */
> 
> No need for the comment, we don't do it for the other fields.
> 
> >  };
> > 
> >  /*
> > diff --git a/security/security.c b/security/security.c
> > index f4170efcddd..f1f5f62f7fa 100644
> > --- a/security/security.c
> > +++ b/security/security.c
> > @@ -1579,6 +1579,52 @@ int security_dentry_create_files_as(struct dentry *dentry, int mode,
> >  }
> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL(security_dentry_create_files_as);
> > 
> > +/**
> > + * security_check_compact_filled_xattrs - check xattrs and make array contiguous
> > + * @xattrs: xattr array filled by LSMs
> > + * @num_xattrs: length of xattr array
> > + * @num_filled_xattrs: number of already processed xattrs
> > + *
> > + * Ensure that each xattr slot is correctly filled and close the gaps in the
> > + * xattr array if an LSM didn't provide an xattr for which it asked space
> > + * (legitimate case, it might have been loaded but not initialized). An LSM
> > + * might request space in the xattr array for one or multiple xattrs. The LSM
> > + * infrastructure ensures that all requests by LSMs are satisfied.
> > + *
> > + * Track the number of filled xattrs in @num_filled_xattrs, so that it is easy
> > + * to determine whether the currently processed xattr is fine in its position
> > + * (if all previous xattrs were filled) or it should be moved after the last
> > + * filled xattr.
> > + *
> > + * Return: zero if all xattrs are valid, -EINVAL otherwise.
> > + */
> > +static int security_check_compact_filled_xattrs(struct xattr *xattrs,
> > +                                               int num_xattrs,
> > +                                               int *num_filled_xattrs)
> 
> That is one long name :)
> 
> Since you're making some other changes to this patch, can you rename
> this to security_xattr_compact() or something like that?

Yes, definitely!

> > +{
> > +       int i;
> > +
> > +       for (i = *num_filled_xattrs; i < num_xattrs; i++) {
> > +               if ((!xattrs[i].name && xattrs[i].value) ||
> > +                   (xattrs[i].name && !xattrs[i].value))
> > +                       return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > +               if (!xattrs[i].name)
> > +                       continue;
> > +
> > +               if (i == *num_filled_xattrs) {
> > +                       (*num_filled_xattrs)++;
> > +                       continue;
> > +               }
> > +
> > +               memcpy(xattrs + (*num_filled_xattrs)++, xattrs + i,
> > +                      sizeof(*xattrs));
> > +               memset(xattrs + i, 0, sizeof(*xattrs));
> > +       }
> > +
> > +       return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> >  /**
> >   * security_inode_init_security() - Initialize an inode's LSM context
> >   * @inode: the inode
> > @@ -1591,9 +1637,13 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(security_dentry_create_files_as);
> >   * created inode and set up the incore security field for the new inode.  This
> >   * hook is called by the fs code as part of the inode creation transaction and
> >   * provides for atomic labeling of the inode, unlike the post_create/mkdir/...
> > - * hooks called by the VFS.  The hook function is expected to allocate the name
> > - * and value via kmalloc, with the caller being responsible for calling kfree
> > - * after using them.  If the security module does not use security attributes
> > + * hooks called by the VFS.  The hook function is expected to populate the
> > + * @xattrs array, depending on how many xattrs have been specified by the
> > + * security module in the lbs_xattr field of the lsm_blob_sizes structure.  For
> > + * each array element, the hook function is expected to set ->name to the
> > + * attribute name suffix (e.g. selinux), to allocate ->value (will be freed by
> > + * the caller) and set it to the attribute value, to set ->value_len to the
> > + * length of the value.  If the security module does not use security attributes
> >   * or does not wish to put a security attribute on this particular inode, then
> >   * it should return -EOPNOTSUPP to skip this processing.
> >   *
> > @@ -1604,33 +1654,66 @@ int security_inode_init_security(struct inode *inode, struct inode *dir,
> >                                  const struct qstr *qstr,
> >                                  const initxattrs initxattrs, void *fs_data)
> >  {
> > -       struct xattr new_xattrs[MAX_LSM_EVM_XATTR + 1];
> > -       struct xattr *lsm_xattr, *evm_xattr, *xattr;
> > -       int ret;
> > +       struct security_hook_list *P;
> > +       struct xattr *new_xattrs;
> > +       struct xattr *xattr;
> > +       int ret = -EOPNOTSUPP, num_filled_xattrs = 0;
> > 
> >         if (unlikely(IS_PRIVATE(inode)))
> >                 return 0;
> > 
> > +       if (!blob_sizes.lbs_xattr)
> > +               return 0;
> > +
> >         if (!initxattrs)
> >                 return call_int_hook(inode_init_security, -EOPNOTSUPP, inode,
> > -                                    dir, qstr, NULL, NULL, NULL);
> > -       memset(new_xattrs, 0, sizeof(new_xattrs));
> > -       lsm_xattr = new_xattrs;
> > -       ret = call_int_hook(inode_init_security, -EOPNOTSUPP, inode, dir, qstr,
> > -                           &lsm_xattr->name,
> > -                           &lsm_xattr->value,
> > -                           &lsm_xattr->value_len);
> > -       if (ret)
> > +                                   dir, qstr, NULL);
> > +       /* Allocate +1 for EVM and +1 as terminator. */
> > +       new_xattrs = kcalloc(blob_sizes.lbs_xattr + 2, sizeof(*new_xattrs),
> > +                            GFP_NOFS);
> > +       if (!new_xattrs)
> > +               return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > +       hlist_for_each_entry(P, &security_hook_heads.inode_init_security,
> > +                            list) {
> > +               ret = P->hook.inode_init_security(inode, dir, qstr, new_xattrs);
> > +               if (ret && ret != -EOPNOTSUPP)
> > +                       goto out;
> > +               /*
> > +                * As documented in lsm_hooks.h, -EOPNOTSUPP in this context
> > +                * means that the LSM is not willing to provide an xattr, not
> > +                * that it wants to signal an error. Thus, continue to invoke
> > +                * the remaining LSMs.
> > +                */
> > +               if (ret == -EOPNOTSUPP)
> > +                       continue;
> > +               /*
> > +                * As the number of xattrs reserved by LSMs is not directly
> > +                * available, directly use the total number blob_sizes.lbs_xattr
> > +                * to keep the code simple, while being not the most efficient
> > +                * way.
> > +                */
> 
> Is there a good reason why the LSM can't return the number of xattrs
> it is adding to the xattr array?  It seems like it should be fairly
> trivial for the individual LSMs to determine and it could save a lot
> of work.  However, given we're at v8 on this patchset I'm sure I'm
> missing something obvious, can you help me understand why the idea
> above is crazy stupid? ;)

Ok, I looked back at what I did for v3.

Moving from v3 to v4, I decided to put less burden on LSMs, and to make
all the processing from the LSM infrastructure side.

v3 had some safeguards to prevent some programming mistakes by LSMs,
which maybe made the code less understandable.

However, if we say we keep things as simple as possible and assume that
LSMs implement this correctly, we can just pass num_filled_xattrs to
them and they simply increment it.

The EVM bug should not arise (accessing xattr->name = NULL), even if
BPF LSM alone returns zero, due to the check of num_filled_xattrs
before calling evm_inode_init_security().

Patch 6 (at the end) will prevent the bug from arising when EVM is
moved to the LSM infrastructure (no num_filled_xattrs check anymore).
There is a loop that stops if xattr->name is NULL, so
evm_protected_xattr() will not be called.

Or, like you suggested, we just return a positive value from LSMs and
we keep num_filled_xattrs in security_inode_init_security().

Ok, I'll go for your proposal.

> > +               ret = security_check_compact_filled_xattrs(new_xattrs,
> > +                                                          blob_sizes.lbs_xattr,
> > +                                                          &num_filled_xattrs);
> > +               if (ret < 0) {
> > +                       ret = -ENOMEM;
> > +                       goto out;
> > +               }
> > +       }
> > +
> > +       if (!num_filled_xattrs)
> >                 goto out;
> > 
> > -       evm_xattr = lsm_xattr + 1;
> > -       ret = evm_inode_init_security(inode, lsm_xattr, evm_xattr);
> > +       ret = evm_inode_init_security(inode, new_xattrs,
> > +                                     new_xattrs + num_filled_xattrs);
> >         if (ret)
> >                 goto out;
> >         ret = initxattrs(inode, new_xattrs, fs_data);
> >  out:
> >         for (xattr = new_xattrs; xattr->value != NULL; xattr++)
> >                 kfree(xattr->value);
> > +       kfree(new_xattrs);
> >         return (ret == -EOPNOTSUPP) ? 0 : ret;
> >  }
> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL(security_inode_init_security);
> > diff --git a/security/selinux/hooks.c b/security/selinux/hooks.c
> > index 9a5bdfc2131..3e4308dd336 100644
> > --- a/security/selinux/hooks.c
> > +++ b/security/selinux/hooks.c
> > @@ -104,6 +104,8 @@
> >  #include "audit.h"
> >  #include "avc_ss.h"
> > 
> > +#define SELINUX_INODE_INIT_XATTRS 1
> > +
> >  struct selinux_state selinux_state;
> > 
> >  /* SECMARK reference count */
> > @@ -2868,11 +2870,11 @@ static int selinux_dentry_create_files_as(struct dentry *dentry, int mode,
> > 
> >  static int selinux_inode_init_security(struct inode *inode, struct inode *dir,
> >                                        const struct qstr *qstr,
> > -                                      const char **name,
> > -                                      void **value, size_t *len)
> > +                                      struct xattr *xattrs)
> >  {
> >         const struct task_security_struct *tsec = selinux_cred(current_cred());
> >         struct superblock_security_struct *sbsec;
> > +       struct xattr *xattr = NULL;
> >         u32 newsid, clen;
> >         int rc;
> >         char *context;
> > @@ -2899,16 +2901,18 @@ static int selinux_inode_init_security(struct inode *inode, struct inode *dir,
> >             !(sbsec->flags & SBLABEL_MNT))
> >                 return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > 
> > -       if (name)
> > -               *name = XATTR_SELINUX_SUFFIX;
> > +       if (xattrs)
> > +               xattr = xattrs + selinux_blob_sizes.lbs_xattr;
> 
> Please abstract that away to an inline function similar to
> selinux_cred(), selinux_file(), selinux_inode(), etc.

Ok.

> > +       if (xattr) {
> > +               xattr->name = XATTR_SELINUX_SUFFIX;
> 
> I'm guessing the xattr->name assignment is always done, regardless of
> if security_sid_to_context_force() is successful, due to the -EINVAL
> check in security_check_compact_filled_xattrs()?  If yes, it would be
> good to make note of that here in the code.  If not, it would be nice
> to move this down the function to go with the other xattr->XXX
> assignments, unless there is another reason for its placement that I'm
> missing.

Uhm, if an LSM returns an error, security_inode_init_security() stops
and does the cleanup. It should not matter if xattr->name was set.

Thanks

Roberto

> > -       if (value && len) {
> >                 rc = security_sid_to_context_force(&selinux_state, newsid,
> >                                                    &context, &clen);
> >                 if (rc)
> >                         return rc;
> > -               *value = context;
> > -               *len = clen;
> > +               xattr->value = context;
> > +               xattr->value_len = clen;
> >         }
> > 
> >         return 0;
> > @@ -6918,6 +6922,7 @@ struct lsm_blob_sizes selinux_blob_sizes __lsm_ro_after_init = {
> >         .lbs_ipc = sizeof(struct ipc_security_struct),
> >         .lbs_msg_msg = sizeof(struct msg_security_struct),
> >         .lbs_superblock = sizeof(struct superblock_security_struct),
> > +       .lbs_xattr = SELINUX_INODE_INIT_XATTRS,
> >  };
> > 
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_PERF_EVENTS
> > diff --git a/security/smack/smack_lsm.c b/security/smack/smack_lsm.c
> > index cfcbb748da2..c8cf8df268b 100644
> > --- a/security/smack/smack_lsm.c
> > +++ b/security/smack/smack_lsm.c
> > @@ -52,6 +52,15 @@
> >  #define SMK_RECEIVING  1
> >  #define SMK_SENDING    2
> > 
> > +/*
> > + * Smack uses multiple xattrs.
> > + * SMACK64 - for access control, SMACK64EXEC - label for the program,
> > + * SMACK64MMAP - controls library loading,
> > + * SMACK64TRANSMUTE - label initialization,
> > + * Not saved on files - SMACK64IPIN and SMACK64IPOUT
> > + */
> > +#define SMACK_INODE_INIT_XATTRS 4
> > +
> >  #ifdef SMACK_IPV6_PORT_LABELING
> >  static DEFINE_MUTEX(smack_ipv6_lock);
> >  static LIST_HEAD(smk_ipv6_port_list);
> > @@ -939,26 +948,27 @@ static int smack_inode_alloc_security(struct inode *inode)
> >   * @inode: the newly created inode
> >   * @dir: containing directory object
> >   * @qstr: unused
> > - * @name: where to put the attribute name
> > - * @value: where to put the attribute value
> > - * @len: where to put the length of the attribute
> > + * @xattrs: where to put the attributes
> >   *
> >   * Returns 0 if it all works out, -ENOMEM if there's no memory
> >   */
> >  static int smack_inode_init_security(struct inode *inode, struct inode *dir,
> > -                                    const struct qstr *qstr, const char **name,
> > -                                    void **value, size_t *len)
> > +                                    const struct qstr *qstr,
> > +                                    struct xattr *xattrs)
> >  {
> >         struct inode_smack *issp = smack_inode(inode);
> >         struct smack_known *skp = smk_of_current();
> >         struct smack_known *isp = smk_of_inode(inode);
> >         struct smack_known *dsp = smk_of_inode(dir);
> > +       struct xattr *xattr = NULL;
> >         int may;
> > 
> > -       if (name)
> > -               *name = XATTR_SMACK_SUFFIX;
> > +       if (xattrs)
> > +               xattr = xattrs + smack_blob_sizes.lbs_xattr;
> > +
> > +       if (xattr) {
> > +               xattr->name = XATTR_SMACK_SUFFIX;
> > 
> > -       if (value && len) {
> >                 rcu_read_lock();
> >                 may = smk_access_entry(skp->smk_known, dsp->smk_known,
> >                                        &skp->smk_rules);
> > @@ -976,11 +986,11 @@ static int smack_inode_init_security(struct inode *inode, struct inode *dir,
> >                         issp->smk_flags |= SMK_INODE_CHANGED;
> >                 }
> > 
> > -               *value = kstrdup(isp->smk_known, GFP_NOFS);
> > -               if (*value == NULL)
> > +               xattr->value = kstrdup(isp->smk_known, GFP_NOFS);
> > +               if (xattr->value == NULL)
> >                         return -ENOMEM;
> > 
> > -               *len = strlen(isp->smk_known);
> > +               xattr->value_len = strlen(isp->smk_known);
> >         }
> > 
> >         return 0;
> > @@ -4854,6 +4864,7 @@ struct lsm_blob_sizes smack_blob_sizes __lsm_ro_after_init = {
> >         .lbs_ipc = sizeof(struct smack_known *),
> >         .lbs_msg_msg = sizeof(struct smack_known *),
> >         .lbs_superblock = sizeof(struct superblock_smack),
> > +       .lbs_xattr = SMACK_INODE_INIT_XATTRS,
> >  };
> > 
> >  static struct security_hook_list smack_hooks[] __lsm_ro_after_init = {
> > --
> > 2.25.1
  

On Fri, 2023-03-24 at 11:18 +0100, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> On Thu, 2023-03-23 at 20:09 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 4:19 AM Roberto Sassu
> > <roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com> wrote:
> > > From: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
> > > 
> > > Currently, security_inode_init_security() supports only one LSM providing
> > > an xattr and EVM calculating the HMAC on that xattr, plus other inode
> > > metadata.
> > > 
> > > Allow all LSMs to provide one or multiple xattrs, by extending the security
> > > blob reservation mechanism. Introduce the new lbs_xattr field of the
> > > lsm_blob_sizes structure, so that each LSM can specify how many xattrs it
> > > needs, and the LSM infrastructure knows how many xattr slots it should
> > > allocate.
> > > 
> > > Dynamically allocate the xattrs array to be populated by LSMs with the
> > > inode_init_security hook, and pass it to the latter instead of the
> > > name/value/len triple. Update the documentation accordingly, and fix the
> > > description of the xattr name, as it is not allocated anymore.
> > > 
> > > Since the LSM infrastructure, at initialization time, updates the number of
> > > the requested xattrs provided by each LSM with a corresponding offset in
> > > the security blob (in this case the xattr array), it makes straightforward
> > > for an LSM to access the right position in the xattr array.
> > > 
> > > There is still the issue that an LSM might not fill the xattr, even if it
> > > requests it (legitimate case, for example it might have been loaded but not
> > > initialized with a policy). Since users of the xattr array (e.g. the
> > > initxattrs() callbacks) detect the end of the xattr array by checking if
> > > the xattr name is NULL, not filling an xattr would cause those users to
> > > stop scanning xattrs prematurely.
> > > 
> > > Solve that issue by introducing security_check_compact_filled_xattrs(),
> > > which does a basic check of the xattr array (if the xattr name is filled,
> > > the xattr value should be too, and viceversa), and compacts the xattr array
> > > by removing the holes.
> > > 
> > > An alternative solution would be to let users of the xattr array know the
> > > number of elements of that array, so that they don't have to check the
> > > termination. However, this seems more invasive, compared to a simple move
> > > of few array elements.
> > > 
> > > security_check_compact_filled_xattrs() also determines how many xattrs in
> > > the xattr array have been filled. If there is none, skip
> > > evm_inode_init_security() and initxattrs(). Skipping the former also avoids
> > > EVM to crash the kernel, as it is expecting a filled xattr.
> > > 
> > > Finally, adapt both SELinux and Smack to use the new definition of the
> > > inode_init_security hook, and to correctly fill the designated slots in the
> > > xattr array. For Smack, reserve space for the other defined xattrs although
> > > they are not set yet in smack_inode_init_security().
> > > 
> > > Reported-by: Nicolas Bouchinet <nicolas.bouchinet@clip-os.org> (EVM crash)
> > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/Y1FTSIo+1x+4X0LS@archlinux/
> > > Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
> > > ---
> > >  include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h |   3 +-
> > >  include/linux/lsm_hooks.h     |   1 +
> > >  security/security.c           | 119 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> > >  security/selinux/hooks.c      |  19 ++++--
> > >  security/smack/smack_lsm.c    |  33 ++++++----
> > >  5 files changed, 137 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h b/include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h
> > > index 6bb55e61e8e..b814955ae70 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h
> > > @@ -112,8 +112,7 @@ LSM_HOOK(int, 0, path_notify, const struct path *path, u64 mask,
> > >  LSM_HOOK(int, 0, inode_alloc_security, struct inode *inode)
> > >  LSM_HOOK(void, LSM_RET_VOID, inode_free_security, struct inode *inode)
> > >  LSM_HOOK(int, 0, inode_init_security, struct inode *inode,
> > > -        struct inode *dir, const struct qstr *qstr, const char **name,
> > > -        void **value, size_t *len)
> > > +        struct inode *dir, const struct qstr *qstr, struct xattr *xattrs)
> > >  LSM_HOOK(int, 0, inode_init_security_anon, struct inode *inode,
> > >          const struct qstr *name, const struct inode *context_inode)
> > >  LSM_HOOK(int, 0, inode_create, struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry,
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h b/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
> > > index c2be66c669a..75a2f85b49d 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
> > > @@ -63,6 +63,7 @@ struct lsm_blob_sizes {
> > >         int     lbs_ipc;
> > >         int     lbs_msg_msg;
> > >         int     lbs_task;
> > > +       int     lbs_xattr; /* number of xattr slots in new_xattrs array */
> > 
> > No need for the comment, we don't do it for the other fields.
> > 
> > >  };
> > > 
> > >  /*
> > > diff --git a/security/security.c b/security/security.c
> > > index f4170efcddd..f1f5f62f7fa 100644
> > > --- a/security/security.c
> > > +++ b/security/security.c
> > > @@ -1579,6 +1579,52 @@ int security_dentry_create_files_as(struct dentry *dentry, int mode,
> > >  }
> > >  EXPORT_SYMBOL(security_dentry_create_files_as);
> > > 
> > > +/**
> > > + * security_check_compact_filled_xattrs - check xattrs and make array contiguous
> > > + * @xattrs: xattr array filled by LSMs
> > > + * @num_xattrs: length of xattr array
> > > + * @num_filled_xattrs: number of already processed xattrs
> > > + *
> > > + * Ensure that each xattr slot is correctly filled and close the gaps in the
> > > + * xattr array if an LSM didn't provide an xattr for which it asked space
> > > + * (legitimate case, it might have been loaded but not initialized). An LSM
> > > + * might request space in the xattr array for one or multiple xattrs. The LSM
> > > + * infrastructure ensures that all requests by LSMs are satisfied.
> > > + *
> > > + * Track the number of filled xattrs in @num_filled_xattrs, so that it is easy
> > > + * to determine whether the currently processed xattr is fine in its position
> > > + * (if all previous xattrs were filled) or it should be moved after the last
> > > + * filled xattr.
> > > + *
> > > + * Return: zero if all xattrs are valid, -EINVAL otherwise.
> > > + */
> > > +static int security_check_compact_filled_xattrs(struct xattr *xattrs,
> > > +                                               int num_xattrs,
> > > +                                               int *num_filled_xattrs)
> > 
> > That is one long name :)
> > 
> > Since you're making some other changes to this patch, can you rename
> > this to security_xattr_compact() or something like that?
> 
> Yes, definitely!
> 
> > > +{
> > > +       int i;
> > > +
> > > +       for (i = *num_filled_xattrs; i < num_xattrs; i++) {
> > > +               if ((!xattrs[i].name && xattrs[i].value) ||
> > > +                   (xattrs[i].name && !xattrs[i].value))
> > > +                       return -EINVAL;
> > > +
> > > +               if (!xattrs[i].name)
> > > +                       continue;
> > > +
> > > +               if (i == *num_filled_xattrs) {
> > > +                       (*num_filled_xattrs)++;
> > > +                       continue;
> > > +               }
> > > +
> > > +               memcpy(xattrs + (*num_filled_xattrs)++, xattrs + i,
> > > +                      sizeof(*xattrs));
> > > +               memset(xattrs + i, 0, sizeof(*xattrs));
> > > +       }
> > > +
> > > +       return 0;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > >  /**
> > >   * security_inode_init_security() - Initialize an inode's LSM context
> > >   * @inode: the inode
> > > @@ -1591,9 +1637,13 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(security_dentry_create_files_as);
> > >   * created inode and set up the incore security field for the new inode.  This
> > >   * hook is called by the fs code as part of the inode creation transaction and
> > >   * provides for atomic labeling of the inode, unlike the post_create/mkdir/...
> > > - * hooks called by the VFS.  The hook function is expected to allocate the name
> > > - * and value via kmalloc, with the caller being responsible for calling kfree
> > > - * after using them.  If the security module does not use security attributes
> > > + * hooks called by the VFS.  The hook function is expected to populate the
> > > + * @xattrs array, depending on how many xattrs have been specified by the
> > > + * security module in the lbs_xattr field of the lsm_blob_sizes structure.  For
> > > + * each array element, the hook function is expected to set ->name to the
> > > + * attribute name suffix (e.g. selinux), to allocate ->value (will be freed by
> > > + * the caller) and set it to the attribute value, to set ->value_len to the
> > > + * length of the value.  If the security module does not use security attributes
> > >   * or does not wish to put a security attribute on this particular inode, then
> > >   * it should return -EOPNOTSUPP to skip this processing.
> > >   *
> > > @@ -1604,33 +1654,66 @@ int security_inode_init_security(struct inode *inode, struct inode *dir,
> > >                                  const struct qstr *qstr,
> > >                                  const initxattrs initxattrs, void *fs_data)
> > >  {
> > > -       struct xattr new_xattrs[MAX_LSM_EVM_XATTR + 1];
> > > -       struct xattr *lsm_xattr, *evm_xattr, *xattr;
> > > -       int ret;
> > > +       struct security_hook_list *P;
> > > +       struct xattr *new_xattrs;
> > > +       struct xattr *xattr;
> > > +       int ret = -EOPNOTSUPP, num_filled_xattrs = 0;
> > > 
> > >         if (unlikely(IS_PRIVATE(inode)))
> > >                 return 0;
> > > 
> > > +       if (!blob_sizes.lbs_xattr)
> > > +               return 0;
> > > +
> > >         if (!initxattrs)
> > >                 return call_int_hook(inode_init_security, -EOPNOTSUPP, inode,
> > > -                                    dir, qstr, NULL, NULL, NULL);
> > > -       memset(new_xattrs, 0, sizeof(new_xattrs));
> > > -       lsm_xattr = new_xattrs;
> > > -       ret = call_int_hook(inode_init_security, -EOPNOTSUPP, inode, dir, qstr,
> > > -                           &lsm_xattr->name,
> > > -                           &lsm_xattr->value,
> > > -                           &lsm_xattr->value_len);
> > > -       if (ret)
> > > +                                   dir, qstr, NULL);
> > > +       /* Allocate +1 for EVM and +1 as terminator. */
> > > +       new_xattrs = kcalloc(blob_sizes.lbs_xattr + 2, sizeof(*new_xattrs),
> > > +                            GFP_NOFS);
> > > +       if (!new_xattrs)
> > > +               return -ENOMEM;
> > > +
> > > +       hlist_for_each_entry(P, &security_hook_heads.inode_init_security,
> > > +                            list) {
> > > +               ret = P->hook.inode_init_security(inode, dir, qstr, new_xattrs);
> > > +               if (ret && ret != -EOPNOTSUPP)
> > > +                       goto out;
> > > +               /*
> > > +                * As documented in lsm_hooks.h, -EOPNOTSUPP in this context
> > > +                * means that the LSM is not willing to provide an xattr, not
> > > +                * that it wants to signal an error. Thus, continue to invoke
> > > +                * the remaining LSMs.
> > > +                */
> > > +               if (ret == -EOPNOTSUPP)
> > > +                       continue;
> > > +               /*
> > > +                * As the number of xattrs reserved by LSMs is not directly
> > > +                * available, directly use the total number blob_sizes.lbs_xattr
> > > +                * to keep the code simple, while being not the most efficient
> > > +                * way.
> > > +                */
> > 
> > Is there a good reason why the LSM can't return the number of xattrs
> > it is adding to the xattr array?  It seems like it should be fairly
> > trivial for the individual LSMs to determine and it could save a lot
> > of work.  However, given we're at v8 on this patchset I'm sure I'm
> > missing something obvious, can you help me understand why the idea
> > above is crazy stupid? ;)

Much simple answer. Yes, LSMs could return the number of xattrs set,
but security_check_compact_filled_xattrs() also needs to know from
which offset (the lbs_xattr of each LSM) it should start compacting.

Example: suppose that you have three LSMs with:

LSM#1: lbs_xattr 1
LSM#2: lbs_xattr 2 (disabled)
LSM#3: lbs_xattr 1

The current compaction interval is: already compacted xattrs - end of
new_xattr array.

When the security_inode_init_security() loop calls LSM#3, the
compaction interval is: 1 - 2 (LSM#2 returns 0), which clearly isn't
right. The correct compaction interval should be: 3 - 4.

Going to the end of new_xattrs is an approximation, but it ensures
that security_check_compact_filled_xattrs() reaches the xattr set by
LSM#3.

The alternative I was mentioning of passing num_filled_xattrs to LSMs
goes again in the direction of doing on-the-fly compaction, while LSMs
are more familiar with using the lbs_* fields.

I suggest to keep this part as it is, if you agree.

Thanks

Roberto

> Ok, I looked back at what I did for v3.
> 
> Moving from v3 to v4, I decided to put less burden on LSMs, and to make
> all the processing from the LSM infrastructure side.
> 
> v3 had some safeguards to prevent some programming mistakes by LSMs,
> which maybe made the code less understandable.
> 
> However, if we say we keep things as simple as possible and assume that
> LSMs implement this correctly, we can just pass num_filled_xattrs to
> them and they simply increment it.
> 
> The EVM bug should not arise (accessing xattr->name = NULL), even if
> BPF LSM alone returns zero, due to the check of num_filled_xattrs
> before calling evm_inode_init_security().
> 
> Patch 6 (at the end) will prevent the bug from arising when EVM is
> moved to the LSM infrastructure (no num_filled_xattrs check anymore).
> There is a loop that stops if xattr->name is NULL, so
> evm_protected_xattr() will not be called.
> 
> Or, like you suggested, we just return a positive value from LSMs and
> we keep num_filled_xattrs in security_inode_init_security().
> 
> Ok, I'll go for your proposal.
> 
> > > +               ret = security_check_compact_filled_xattrs(new_xattrs,
> > > +                                                          blob_sizes.lbs_xattr,
> > > +                                                          &num_filled_xattrs);
> > > +               if (ret < 0) {
> > > +                       ret = -ENOMEM;
> > > +                       goto out;
> > > +               }
> > > +       }
> > > +
> > > +       if (!num_filled_xattrs)
> > >                 goto out;
> > > 
> > > -       evm_xattr = lsm_xattr + 1;
> > > -       ret = evm_inode_init_security(inode, lsm_xattr, evm_xattr);
> > > +       ret = evm_inode_init_security(inode, new_xattrs,
> > > +                                     new_xattrs + num_filled_xattrs);
> > >         if (ret)
> > >                 goto out;
> > >         ret = initxattrs(inode, new_xattrs, fs_data);
> > >  out:
> > >         for (xattr = new_xattrs; xattr->value != NULL; xattr++)
> > >                 kfree(xattr->value);
> > > +       kfree(new_xattrs);
> > >         return (ret == -EOPNOTSUPP) ? 0 : ret;
> > >  }
> > >  EXPORT_SYMBOL(security_inode_init_security);
> > > diff --git a/security/selinux/hooks.c b/security/selinux/hooks.c
> > > index 9a5bdfc2131..3e4308dd336 100644
> > > --- a/security/selinux/hooks.c
> > > +++ b/security/selinux/hooks.c
> > > @@ -104,6 +104,8 @@
> > >  #include "audit.h"
> > >  #include "avc_ss.h"
> > > 
> > > +#define SELINUX_INODE_INIT_XATTRS 1
> > > +
> > >  struct selinux_state selinux_state;
> > > 
> > >  /* SECMARK reference count */
> > > @@ -2868,11 +2870,11 @@ static int selinux_dentry_create_files_as(struct dentry *dentry, int mode,
> > > 
> > >  static int selinux_inode_init_security(struct inode *inode, struct inode *dir,
> > >                                        const struct qstr *qstr,
> > > -                                      const char **name,
> > > -                                      void **value, size_t *len)
> > > +                                      struct xattr *xattrs)
> > >  {
> > >         const struct task_security_struct *tsec = selinux_cred(current_cred());
> > >         struct superblock_security_struct *sbsec;
> > > +       struct xattr *xattr = NULL;
> > >         u32 newsid, clen;
> > >         int rc;
> > >         char *context;
> > > @@ -2899,16 +2901,18 @@ static int selinux_inode_init_security(struct inode *inode, struct inode *dir,
> > >             !(sbsec->flags & SBLABEL_MNT))
> > >                 return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > > 
> > > -       if (name)
> > > -               *name = XATTR_SELINUX_SUFFIX;
> > > +       if (xattrs)
> > > +               xattr = xattrs + selinux_blob_sizes.lbs_xattr;
> > 
> > Please abstract that away to an inline function similar to
> > selinux_cred(), selinux_file(), selinux_inode(), etc.
> 
> Ok.
> 
> > > +       if (xattr) {
> > > +               xattr->name = XATTR_SELINUX_SUFFIX;
> > 
> > I'm guessing the xattr->name assignment is always done, regardless of
> > if security_sid_to_context_force() is successful, due to the -EINVAL
> > check in security_check_compact_filled_xattrs()?  If yes, it would be
> > good to make note of that here in the code.  If not, it would be nice
> > to move this down the function to go with the other xattr->XXX
> > assignments, unless there is another reason for its placement that I'm
> > missing.
> 
> Uhm, if an LSM returns an error, security_inode_init_security() stops
> and does the cleanup. It should not matter if xattr->name was set.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Roberto
> 
> > > -       if (value && len) {
> > >                 rc = security_sid_to_context_force(&selinux_state, newsid,
> > >                                                    &context, &clen);
> > >                 if (rc)
> > >                         return rc;
> > > -               *value = context;
> > > -               *len = clen;
> > > +               xattr->value = context;
> > > +               xattr->value_len = clen;
> > >         }
> > > 
> > >         return 0;
> > > @@ -6918,6 +6922,7 @@ struct lsm_blob_sizes selinux_blob_sizes __lsm_ro_after_init = {
> > >         .lbs_ipc = sizeof(struct ipc_security_struct),
> > >         .lbs_msg_msg = sizeof(struct msg_security_struct),
> > >         .lbs_superblock = sizeof(struct superblock_security_struct),
> > > +       .lbs_xattr = SELINUX_INODE_INIT_XATTRS,
> > >  };
> > > 
> > >  #ifdef CONFIG_PERF_EVENTS
> > > diff --git a/security/smack/smack_lsm.c b/security/smack/smack_lsm.c
> > > index cfcbb748da2..c8cf8df268b 100644
> > > --- a/security/smack/smack_lsm.c
> > > +++ b/security/smack/smack_lsm.c
> > > @@ -52,6 +52,15 @@
> > >  #define SMK_RECEIVING  1
> > >  #define SMK_SENDING    2
> > > 
> > > +/*
> > > + * Smack uses multiple xattrs.
> > > + * SMACK64 - for access control, SMACK64EXEC - label for the program,
> > > + * SMACK64MMAP - controls library loading,
> > > + * SMACK64TRANSMUTE - label initialization,
> > > + * Not saved on files - SMACK64IPIN and SMACK64IPOUT
> > > + */
> > > +#define SMACK_INODE_INIT_XATTRS 4
> > > +
> > >  #ifdef SMACK_IPV6_PORT_LABELING
> > >  static DEFINE_MUTEX(smack_ipv6_lock);
> > >  static LIST_HEAD(smk_ipv6_port_list);
> > > @@ -939,26 +948,27 @@ static int smack_inode_alloc_security(struct inode *inode)
> > >   * @inode: the newly created inode
> > >   * @dir: containing directory object
> > >   * @qstr: unused
> > > - * @name: where to put the attribute name
> > > - * @value: where to put the attribute value
> > > - * @len: where to put the length of the attribute
> > > + * @xattrs: where to put the attributes
> > >   *
> > >   * Returns 0 if it all works out, -ENOMEM if there's no memory
> > >   */
> > >  static int smack_inode_init_security(struct inode *inode, struct inode *dir,
> > > -                                    const struct qstr *qstr, const char **name,
> > > -                                    void **value, size_t *len)
> > > +                                    const struct qstr *qstr,
> > > +                                    struct xattr *xattrs)
> > >  {
> > >         struct inode_smack *issp = smack_inode(inode);
> > >         struct smack_known *skp = smk_of_current();
> > >         struct smack_known *isp = smk_of_inode(inode);
> > >         struct smack_known *dsp = smk_of_inode(dir);
> > > +       struct xattr *xattr = NULL;
> > >         int may;
> > > 
> > > -       if (name)
> > > -               *name = XATTR_SMACK_SUFFIX;
> > > +       if (xattrs)
> > > +               xattr = xattrs + smack_blob_sizes.lbs_xattr;
> > > +
> > > +       if (xattr) {
> > > +               xattr->name = XATTR_SMACK_SUFFIX;
> > > 
> > > -       if (value && len) {
> > >                 rcu_read_lock();
> > >                 may = smk_access_entry(skp->smk_known, dsp->smk_known,
> > >                                        &skp->smk_rules);
> > > @@ -976,11 +986,11 @@ static int smack_inode_init_security(struct inode *inode, struct inode *dir,
> > >                         issp->smk_flags |= SMK_INODE_CHANGED;
> > >                 }
> > > 
> > > -               *value = kstrdup(isp->smk_known, GFP_NOFS);
> > > -               if (*value == NULL)
> > > +               xattr->value = kstrdup(isp->smk_known, GFP_NOFS);
> > > +               if (xattr->value == NULL)
> > >                         return -ENOMEM;
> > > 
> > > -               *len = strlen(isp->smk_known);
> > > +               xattr->value_len = strlen(isp->smk_known);
> > >         }
> > > 
> > >         return 0;
> > > @@ -4854,6 +4864,7 @@ struct lsm_blob_sizes smack_blob_sizes __lsm_ro_after_init = {
> > >         .lbs_ipc = sizeof(struct smack_known *),
> > >         .lbs_msg_msg = sizeof(struct smack_known *),
> > >         .lbs_superblock = sizeof(struct superblock_smack),
> > > +       .lbs_xattr = SMACK_INODE_INIT_XATTRS,
> > >  };
> > > 
> > >  static struct security_hook_list smack_hooks[] __lsm_ro_after_init = {
> > > --
> > > 2.25.1
  

On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 9:01 PM Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote:
> On 3/23/2023 5:09 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 4:19 AM Roberto Sassu
> > <roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com> wrote:

...

> >> diff --git a/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h b/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
> >> index c2be66c669a..75a2f85b49d 100644
> >> --- a/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
> >> +++ b/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
> >> @@ -63,6 +63,7 @@ struct lsm_blob_sizes {
> >>         int     lbs_ipc;
> >>         int     lbs_msg_msg;
> >>         int     lbs_task;
> >> +       int     lbs_xattr; /* number of xattr slots in new_xattrs array */
> >
> > No need for the comment, we don't do it for the other fields.
>
> I asked for the comment. lbs_xattr is the number of entries, which is
> different from the other fields. The other fields contain blob sizes in
> bytes. Inconsistent behavior should be noted.

Fair enough.  Since that's the case, let's encode something in the
field name itself so that every user has a slight reminder that it is
a count and not a size.  How about 'lbs_xattr_count' or similar?
  

On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 6:18 AM Roberto Sassu
<roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2023-03-23 at 20:09 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 4:19 AM Roberto Sassu
> > <roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com> wrote:
> > > From: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
> > >
> > > Currently, security_inode_init_security() supports only one LSM providing
> > > an xattr and EVM calculating the HMAC on that xattr, plus other inode
> > > metadata.
> > >
> > > Allow all LSMs to provide one or multiple xattrs, by extending the security
> > > blob reservation mechanism. Introduce the new lbs_xattr field of the
> > > lsm_blob_sizes structure, so that each LSM can specify how many xattrs it
> > > needs, and the LSM infrastructure knows how many xattr slots it should
> > > allocate.
> > >
> > > Dynamically allocate the xattrs array to be populated by LSMs with the
> > > inode_init_security hook, and pass it to the latter instead of the
> > > name/value/len triple. Update the documentation accordingly, and fix the
> > > description of the xattr name, as it is not allocated anymore.
> > >
> > > Since the LSM infrastructure, at initialization time, updates the number of
> > > the requested xattrs provided by each LSM with a corresponding offset in
> > > the security blob (in this case the xattr array), it makes straightforward
> > > for an LSM to access the right position in the xattr array.
> > >
> > > There is still the issue that an LSM might not fill the xattr, even if it
> > > requests it (legitimate case, for example it might have been loaded but not
> > > initialized with a policy). Since users of the xattr array (e.g. the
> > > initxattrs() callbacks) detect the end of the xattr array by checking if
> > > the xattr name is NULL, not filling an xattr would cause those users to
> > > stop scanning xattrs prematurely.
> > >
> > > Solve that issue by introducing security_check_compact_filled_xattrs(),
> > > which does a basic check of the xattr array (if the xattr name is filled,
> > > the xattr value should be too, and viceversa), and compacts the xattr array
> > > by removing the holes.
> > >
> > > An alternative solution would be to let users of the xattr array know the
> > > number of elements of that array, so that they don't have to check the
> > > termination. However, this seems more invasive, compared to a simple move
> > > of few array elements.
> > >
> > > security_check_compact_filled_xattrs() also determines how many xattrs in
> > > the xattr array have been filled. If there is none, skip
> > > evm_inode_init_security() and initxattrs(). Skipping the former also avoids
> > > EVM to crash the kernel, as it is expecting a filled xattr.
> > >
> > > Finally, adapt both SELinux and Smack to use the new definition of the
> > > inode_init_security hook, and to correctly fill the designated slots in the
> > > xattr array. For Smack, reserve space for the other defined xattrs although
> > > they are not set yet in smack_inode_init_security().
> > >
> > > Reported-by: Nicolas Bouchinet <nicolas.bouchinet@clip-os.org> (EVM crash)
> > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/Y1FTSIo+1x+4X0LS@archlinux/
> > > Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
> > > ---
> > >  include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h |   3 +-
> > >  include/linux/lsm_hooks.h     |   1 +
> > >  security/security.c           | 119 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> > >  security/selinux/hooks.c      |  19 ++++--
> > >  security/smack/smack_lsm.c    |  33 ++++++----
> > >  5 files changed, 137 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-)

...

> > > @@ -1604,33 +1654,66 @@ int security_inode_init_security(struct inode *inode, struct inode *dir,
> > >                                  const struct qstr *qstr,
> > >                                  const initxattrs initxattrs, void *fs_data)
> > >  {
> > > -       struct xattr new_xattrs[MAX_LSM_EVM_XATTR + 1];
> > > -       struct xattr *lsm_xattr, *evm_xattr, *xattr;
> > > -       int ret;
> > > +       struct security_hook_list *P;
> > > +       struct xattr *new_xattrs;
> > > +       struct xattr *xattr;
> > > +       int ret = -EOPNOTSUPP, num_filled_xattrs = 0;
> > >
> > >         if (unlikely(IS_PRIVATE(inode)))
> > >                 return 0;
> > >
> > > +       if (!blob_sizes.lbs_xattr)
> > > +               return 0;
> > > +
> > >         if (!initxattrs)
> > >                 return call_int_hook(inode_init_security, -EOPNOTSUPP, inode,
> > > -                                    dir, qstr, NULL, NULL, NULL);
> > > -       memset(new_xattrs, 0, sizeof(new_xattrs));
> > > -       lsm_xattr = new_xattrs;
> > > -       ret = call_int_hook(inode_init_security, -EOPNOTSUPP, inode, dir, qstr,
> > > -                           &lsm_xattr->name,
> > > -                           &lsm_xattr->value,
> > > -                           &lsm_xattr->value_len);
> > > -       if (ret)
> > > +                                   dir, qstr, NULL);
> > > +       /* Allocate +1 for EVM and +1 as terminator. */
> > > +       new_xattrs = kcalloc(blob_sizes.lbs_xattr + 2, sizeof(*new_xattrs),
> > > +                            GFP_NOFS);
> > > +       if (!new_xattrs)
> > > +               return -ENOMEM;
> > > +
> > > +       hlist_for_each_entry(P, &security_hook_heads.inode_init_security,
> > > +                            list) {
> > > +               ret = P->hook.inode_init_security(inode, dir, qstr, new_xattrs);
> > > +               if (ret && ret != -EOPNOTSUPP)
> > > +                       goto out;
> > > +               /*
> > > +                * As documented in lsm_hooks.h, -EOPNOTSUPP in this context
> > > +                * means that the LSM is not willing to provide an xattr, not
> > > +                * that it wants to signal an error. Thus, continue to invoke
> > > +                * the remaining LSMs.
> > > +                */
> > > +               if (ret == -EOPNOTSUPP)
> > > +                       continue;
> > > +               /*
> > > +                * As the number of xattrs reserved by LSMs is not directly
> > > +                * available, directly use the total number blob_sizes.lbs_xattr
> > > +                * to keep the code simple, while being not the most efficient
> > > +                * way.
> > > +                */
> >
> > Is there a good reason why the LSM can't return the number of xattrs
> > it is adding to the xattr array?  It seems like it should be fairly
> > trivial for the individual LSMs to determine and it could save a lot
> > of work.  However, given we're at v8 on this patchset I'm sure I'm
> > missing something obvious, can you help me understand why the idea
> > above is crazy stupid? ;)
>
> Ok, I looked back at what I did for v3.
>
> Moving from v3 to v4, I decided to put less burden on LSMs, and to make
> all the processing from the LSM infrastructure side.

As a general rule I think it's a good goal to keep the LSM layer as
small as possible; I believe it allows us to be more flexible with the
LSMs and it keeps the LSM as simple as possible.  I mean less code,
less bugs, amirite? ... ;)

> v3 had some safeguards to prevent some programming mistakes by LSMs,
> which maybe made the code less understandable.
>
> However, if we say we keep things as simple as possible and assume that
> LSMs implement this correctly, we can just pass num_filled_xattrs to
> them and they simply increment it.
>
> The EVM bug should not arise (accessing xattr->name = NULL), even if
> BPF LSM alone returns zero, due to the check of num_filled_xattrs
> before calling evm_inode_init_security().
>
> Patch 6 (at the end) will prevent the bug from arising when EVM is
> moved to the LSM infrastructure (no num_filled_xattrs check anymore).
> There is a loop that stops if xattr->name is NULL, so
> evm_protected_xattr() will not be called.
>
> Or, like you suggested, we just return a positive value from LSMs and
> we keep num_filled_xattrs in security_inode_init_security().

I like the idea of individual LSMs simply reporting the number of
xattrs they've generated instead of incrementing the num_filled_xattrs
variable.

It seems like returning the xattr count as a positive return value
should work just fine, leaving negative values for errors, but if you
run into problems you can always pass the value back in a new
parameter pointer if needed.

> > > @@ -2868,11 +2870,11 @@ static int selinux_dentry_create_files_as(struct dentry *dentry, int mode,
> > >
> > >  static int selinux_inode_init_security(struct inode *inode, struct inode *dir,
> > >                                        const struct qstr *qstr,
> > > -                                      const char **name,
> > > -                                      void **value, size_t *len)
> > > +                                      struct xattr *xattrs)
> > >  {
> > >         const struct task_security_struct *tsec = selinux_cred(current_cred());
> > >         struct superblock_security_struct *sbsec;
> > > +       struct xattr *xattr = NULL;
> > >         u32 newsid, clen;
> > >         int rc;
> > >         char *context;
> > > @@ -2899,16 +2901,18 @@ static int selinux_inode_init_security(struct inode *inode, struct inode *dir,
> > >             !(sbsec->flags & SBLABEL_MNT))
> > >                 return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > >
> > > -       if (name)
> > > -               *name = XATTR_SELINUX_SUFFIX;
> > > +       if (xattrs)
> > > +               xattr = xattrs + selinux_blob_sizes.lbs_xattr;
> >
> > Please abstract that away to an inline function similar to
> > selinux_cred(), selinux_file(), selinux_inode(), etc.
>
> Ok.
>
> > > +       if (xattr) {
> > > +               xattr->name = XATTR_SELINUX_SUFFIX;
> >
> > I'm guessing the xattr->name assignment is always done, regardless of
> > if security_sid_to_context_force() is successful, due to the -EINVAL
> > check in security_check_compact_filled_xattrs()?  If yes, it would be
> > good to make note of that here in the code.  If not, it would be nice
> > to move this down the function to go with the other xattr->XXX
> > assignments, unless there is another reason for its placement that I'm
> > missing.
>
> Uhm, if an LSM returns an error, security_inode_init_security() stops
> and does the cleanup. It should not matter if xattr->name was set.

Okay, I thought I might be missing something during the review.  Since
there is no special reason for putting the xattr->name assignment up
there, please move it down below with the other xattr->XXX
assignments.

Thanks.
  

On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 9:26 AM Roberto Sassu
<roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2023-03-24 at 11:18 +0100, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> > On Thu, 2023-03-23 at 20:09 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 4:19 AM Roberto Sassu
> > > <roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com> wrote:
> > > > From: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
> > > >
> > > > Currently, security_inode_init_security() supports only one LSM providing
> > > > an xattr and EVM calculating the HMAC on that xattr, plus other inode
> > > > metadata.
> > > >
> > > > Allow all LSMs to provide one or multiple xattrs, by extending the security
> > > > blob reservation mechanism. Introduce the new lbs_xattr field of the
> > > > lsm_blob_sizes structure, so that each LSM can specify how many xattrs it
> > > > needs, and the LSM infrastructure knows how many xattr slots it should
> > > > allocate.
> > > >
> > > > Dynamically allocate the xattrs array to be populated by LSMs with the
> > > > inode_init_security hook, and pass it to the latter instead of the
> > > > name/value/len triple. Update the documentation accordingly, and fix the
> > > > description of the xattr name, as it is not allocated anymore.
> > > >
> > > > Since the LSM infrastructure, at initialization time, updates the number of
> > > > the requested xattrs provided by each LSM with a corresponding offset in
> > > > the security blob (in this case the xattr array), it makes straightforward
> > > > for an LSM to access the right position in the xattr array.
> > > >
> > > > There is still the issue that an LSM might not fill the xattr, even if it
> > > > requests it (legitimate case, for example it might have been loaded but not
> > > > initialized with a policy). Since users of the xattr array (e.g. the
> > > > initxattrs() callbacks) detect the end of the xattr array by checking if
> > > > the xattr name is NULL, not filling an xattr would cause those users to
> > > > stop scanning xattrs prematurely.
> > > >
> > > > Solve that issue by introducing security_check_compact_filled_xattrs(),
> > > > which does a basic check of the xattr array (if the xattr name is filled,
> > > > the xattr value should be too, and viceversa), and compacts the xattr array
> > > > by removing the holes.
> > > >
> > > > An alternative solution would be to let users of the xattr array know the
> > > > number of elements of that array, so that they don't have to check the
> > > > termination. However, this seems more invasive, compared to a simple move
> > > > of few array elements.
> > > >
> > > > security_check_compact_filled_xattrs() also determines how many xattrs in
> > > > the xattr array have been filled. If there is none, skip
> > > > evm_inode_init_security() and initxattrs(). Skipping the former also avoids
> > > > EVM to crash the kernel, as it is expecting a filled xattr.
> > > >
> > > > Finally, adapt both SELinux and Smack to use the new definition of the
> > > > inode_init_security hook, and to correctly fill the designated slots in the
> > > > xattr array. For Smack, reserve space for the other defined xattrs although
> > > > they are not set yet in smack_inode_init_security().
> > > >
> > > > Reported-by: Nicolas Bouchinet <nicolas.bouchinet@clip-os.org> (EVM crash)
> > > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/Y1FTSIo+1x+4X0LS@archlinux/
> > > > Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
> > > > Reviewed-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
> > > > Reviewed-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h |   3 +-
> > > >  include/linux/lsm_hooks.h     |   1 +
> > > >  security/security.c           | 119 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> > > >  security/selinux/hooks.c      |  19 ++++--
> > > >  security/smack/smack_lsm.c    |  33 ++++++----
> > > >  5 files changed, 137 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-)

...

> > > > @@ -1604,33 +1654,66 @@ int security_inode_init_security(struct inode *inode, struct inode *dir,
> > > >                                  const struct qstr *qstr,
> > > >                                  const initxattrs initxattrs, void *fs_data)
> > > >  {
> > > > -       struct xattr new_xattrs[MAX_LSM_EVM_XATTR + 1];
> > > > -       struct xattr *lsm_xattr, *evm_xattr, *xattr;
> > > > -       int ret;
> > > > +       struct security_hook_list *P;
> > > > +       struct xattr *new_xattrs;
> > > > +       struct xattr *xattr;
> > > > +       int ret = -EOPNOTSUPP, num_filled_xattrs = 0;
> > > >
> > > >         if (unlikely(IS_PRIVATE(inode)))
> > > >                 return 0;
> > > >
> > > > +       if (!blob_sizes.lbs_xattr)
> > > > +               return 0;
> > > > +
> > > >         if (!initxattrs)
> > > >                 return call_int_hook(inode_init_security, -EOPNOTSUPP, inode,
> > > > -                                    dir, qstr, NULL, NULL, NULL);
> > > > -       memset(new_xattrs, 0, sizeof(new_xattrs));
> > > > -       lsm_xattr = new_xattrs;
> > > > -       ret = call_int_hook(inode_init_security, -EOPNOTSUPP, inode, dir, qstr,
> > > > -                           &lsm_xattr->name,
> > > > -                           &lsm_xattr->value,
> > > > -                           &lsm_xattr->value_len);
> > > > -       if (ret)
> > > > +                                   dir, qstr, NULL);
> > > > +       /* Allocate +1 for EVM and +1 as terminator. */
> > > > +       new_xattrs = kcalloc(blob_sizes.lbs_xattr + 2, sizeof(*new_xattrs),
> > > > +                            GFP_NOFS);
> > > > +       if (!new_xattrs)
> > > > +               return -ENOMEM;
> > > > +
> > > > +       hlist_for_each_entry(P, &security_hook_heads.inode_init_security,
> > > > +                            list) {
> > > > +               ret = P->hook.inode_init_security(inode, dir, qstr, new_xattrs);
> > > > +               if (ret && ret != -EOPNOTSUPP)
> > > > +                       goto out;
> > > > +               /*
> > > > +                * As documented in lsm_hooks.h, -EOPNOTSUPP in this context
> > > > +                * means that the LSM is not willing to provide an xattr, not
> > > > +                * that it wants to signal an error. Thus, continue to invoke
> > > > +                * the remaining LSMs.
> > > > +                */
> > > > +               if (ret == -EOPNOTSUPP)
> > > > +                       continue;
> > > > +               /*
> > > > +                * As the number of xattrs reserved by LSMs is not directly
> > > > +                * available, directly use the total number blob_sizes.lbs_xattr
> > > > +                * to keep the code simple, while being not the most efficient
> > > > +                * way.
> > > > +                */
> > >
> > > Is there a good reason why the LSM can't return the number of xattrs
> > > it is adding to the xattr array?  It seems like it should be fairly
> > > trivial for the individual LSMs to determine and it could save a lot
> > > of work.  However, given we're at v8 on this patchset I'm sure I'm
> > > missing something obvious, can you help me understand why the idea
> > > above is crazy stupid? ;)
>
> Much simple answer. Yes, LSMs could return the number of xattrs set,
> but security_check_compact_filled_xattrs() also needs to know from
> which offset (the lbs_xattr of each LSM) it should start compacting.
>
> Example: suppose that you have three LSMs with:
>
> LSM#1: lbs_xattr 1
> LSM#2: lbs_xattr 2 (disabled)
> LSM#3: lbs_xattr 1
>
> The current compaction interval is: already compacted xattrs - end of
> new_xattr array.
>
> When the security_inode_init_security() loop calls LSM#3, the
> compaction interval is: 1 - 2 (LSM#2 returns 0), which clearly isn't
> right. The correct compaction interval should be: 3 - 4.
>
> Going to the end of new_xattrs is an approximation, but it ensures
> that security_check_compact_filled_xattrs() reaches the xattr set by
> LSM#3.
>
> The alternative I was mentioning of passing num_filled_xattrs to LSMs
> goes again in the direction of doing on-the-fly compaction, while LSMs
> are more familiar with using the lbs_* fields.

I guess I was thinking of the case where the LSM layer, i.e.
security_inode_init_security(), allocates an xattr array like it does
now based on the maximum number of xattrs possible using the
lsm_blob_sizes values and passes a pointer to the individual LSMs
which is incremented based on how many xattrs are created by the
individual LSMs.  Here is some *very* rough pseudo code:

int security_inode_init_security(...)
{

  /* allocate an xattr array */
  xattrs = kcalloc(blob_sizes, sizeof(*xattrs), GFP_BLAH);

  /* loop on the lsms */
  xa_cnt = 0;
  while (lsm_hooks) {
    rc = call_hook(lsm_hook, &xattrs[xa_cnt]);
    if (rc > 0)
      xa_cnt += rc;
  }

  /* evm magic */
  evm_inode_init_security(...)
}

Does that work?  Am I missing something?
  

On Fri, 2023-03-24 at 17:39 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 9:26 AM Roberto Sassu
> <roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2023-03-24 at 11:18 +0100, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2023-03-23 at 20:09 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 4:19 AM Roberto Sassu
> > > > <roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com> wrote:
> > > > > From: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
> > > > > 
> > > > > Currently, security_inode_init_security() supports only one LSM providing
> > > > > an xattr and EVM calculating the HMAC on that xattr, plus other inode
> > > > > metadata.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Allow all LSMs to provide one or multiple xattrs, by extending the security
> > > > > blob reservation mechanism. Introduce the new lbs_xattr field of the
> > > > > lsm_blob_sizes structure, so that each LSM can specify how many xattrs it
> > > > > needs, and the LSM infrastructure knows how many xattr slots it should
> > > > > allocate.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Dynamically allocate the xattrs array to be populated by LSMs with the
> > > > > inode_init_security hook, and pass it to the latter instead of the
> > > > > name/value/len triple. Update the documentation accordingly, and fix the
> > > > > description of the xattr name, as it is not allocated anymore.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Since the LSM infrastructure, at initialization time, updates the number of
> > > > > the requested xattrs provided by each LSM with a corresponding offset in
> > > > > the security blob (in this case the xattr array), it makes straightforward
> > > > > for an LSM to access the right position in the xattr array.
> > > > > 
> > > > > There is still the issue that an LSM might not fill the xattr, even if it
> > > > > requests it (legitimate case, for example it might have been loaded but not
> > > > > initialized with a policy). Since users of the xattr array (e.g. the
> > > > > initxattrs() callbacks) detect the end of the xattr array by checking if
> > > > > the xattr name is NULL, not filling an xattr would cause those users to
> > > > > stop scanning xattrs prematurely.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Solve that issue by introducing security_check_compact_filled_xattrs(),
> > > > > which does a basic check of the xattr array (if the xattr name is filled,
> > > > > the xattr value should be too, and viceversa), and compacts the xattr array
> > > > > by removing the holes.
> > > > > 
> > > > > An alternative solution would be to let users of the xattr array know the
> > > > > number of elements of that array, so that they don't have to check the
> > > > > termination. However, this seems more invasive, compared to a simple move
> > > > > of few array elements.
> > > > > 
> > > > > security_check_compact_filled_xattrs() also determines how many xattrs in
> > > > > the xattr array have been filled. If there is none, skip
> > > > > evm_inode_init_security() and initxattrs(). Skipping the former also avoids
> > > > > EVM to crash the kernel, as it is expecting a filled xattr.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Finally, adapt both SELinux and Smack to use the new definition of the
> > > > > inode_init_security hook, and to correctly fill the designated slots in the
> > > > > xattr array. For Smack, reserve space for the other defined xattrs although
> > > > > they are not set yet in smack_inode_init_security().
> > > > > 
> > > > > Reported-by: Nicolas Bouchinet <nicolas.bouchinet@clip-os.org> (EVM crash)
> > > > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/Y1FTSIo+1x+4X0LS@archlinux/
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h |   3 +-
> > > > >  include/linux/lsm_hooks.h     |   1 +
> > > > >  security/security.c           | 119 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> > > > >  security/selinux/hooks.c      |  19 ++++--
> > > > >  security/smack/smack_lsm.c    |  33 ++++++----
> > > > >  5 files changed, 137 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-)
> 
> ...
> 
> > > > > @@ -1604,33 +1654,66 @@ int security_inode_init_security(struct inode *inode, struct inode *dir,
> > > > >                                  const struct qstr *qstr,
> > > > >                                  const initxattrs initxattrs, void *fs_data)
> > > > >  {
> > > > > -       struct xattr new_xattrs[MAX_LSM_EVM_XATTR + 1];
> > > > > -       struct xattr *lsm_xattr, *evm_xattr, *xattr;
> > > > > -       int ret;
> > > > > +       struct security_hook_list *P;
> > > > > +       struct xattr *new_xattrs;
> > > > > +       struct xattr *xattr;
> > > > > +       int ret = -EOPNOTSUPP, num_filled_xattrs = 0;
> > > > > 
> > > > >         if (unlikely(IS_PRIVATE(inode)))
> > > > >                 return 0;
> > > > > 
> > > > > +       if (!blob_sizes.lbs_xattr)
> > > > > +               return 0;
> > > > > +
> > > > >         if (!initxattrs)
> > > > >                 return call_int_hook(inode_init_security, -EOPNOTSUPP, inode,
> > > > > -                                    dir, qstr, NULL, NULL, NULL);
> > > > > -       memset(new_xattrs, 0, sizeof(new_xattrs));
> > > > > -       lsm_xattr = new_xattrs;
> > > > > -       ret = call_int_hook(inode_init_security, -EOPNOTSUPP, inode, dir, qstr,
> > > > > -                           &lsm_xattr->name,
> > > > > -                           &lsm_xattr->value,
> > > > > -                           &lsm_xattr->value_len);
> > > > > -       if (ret)
> > > > > +                                   dir, qstr, NULL);
> > > > > +       /* Allocate +1 for EVM and +1 as terminator. */
> > > > > +       new_xattrs = kcalloc(blob_sizes.lbs_xattr + 2, sizeof(*new_xattrs),
> > > > > +                            GFP_NOFS);
> > > > > +       if (!new_xattrs)
> > > > > +               return -ENOMEM;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +       hlist_for_each_entry(P, &security_hook_heads.inode_init_security,
> > > > > +                            list) {
> > > > > +               ret = P->hook.inode_init_security(inode, dir, qstr, new_xattrs);
> > > > > +               if (ret && ret != -EOPNOTSUPP)
> > > > > +                       goto out;
> > > > > +               /*
> > > > > +                * As documented in lsm_hooks.h, -EOPNOTSUPP in this context
> > > > > +                * means that the LSM is not willing to provide an xattr, not
> > > > > +                * that it wants to signal an error. Thus, continue to invoke
> > > > > +                * the remaining LSMs.
> > > > > +                */
> > > > > +               if (ret == -EOPNOTSUPP)
> > > > > +                       continue;
> > > > > +               /*
> > > > > +                * As the number of xattrs reserved by LSMs is not directly
> > > > > +                * available, directly use the total number blob_sizes.lbs_xattr
> > > > > +                * to keep the code simple, while being not the most efficient
> > > > > +                * way.
> > > > > +                */
> > > > 
> > > > Is there a good reason why the LSM can't return the number of xattrs
> > > > it is adding to the xattr array?  It seems like it should be fairly
> > > > trivial for the individual LSMs to determine and it could save a lot
> > > > of work.  However, given we're at v8 on this patchset I'm sure I'm
> > > > missing something obvious, can you help me understand why the idea
> > > > above is crazy stupid? ;)
> > 
> > Much simple answer. Yes, LSMs could return the number of xattrs set,
> > but security_check_compact_filled_xattrs() also needs to know from
> > which offset (the lbs_xattr of each LSM) it should start compacting.
> > 
> > Example: suppose that you have three LSMs with:
> > 
> > LSM#1: lbs_xattr 1
> > LSM#2: lbs_xattr 2 (disabled)
> > LSM#3: lbs_xattr 1
> > 
> > The current compaction interval is: already compacted xattrs - end of
> > new_xattr array.
> > 
> > When the security_inode_init_security() loop calls LSM#3, the
> > compaction interval is: 1 - 2 (LSM#2 returns 0), which clearly isn't
> > right. The correct compaction interval should be: 3 - 4.
> > 
> > Going to the end of new_xattrs is an approximation, but it ensures
> > that security_check_compact_filled_xattrs() reaches the xattr set by
> > LSM#3.
> > 
> > The alternative I was mentioning of passing num_filled_xattrs to LSMs
> > goes again in the direction of doing on-the-fly compaction, while LSMs
> > are more familiar with using the lbs_* fields.
> 
> I guess I was thinking of the case where the LSM layer, i.e.
> security_inode_init_security(), allocates an xattr array like it does
> now based on the maximum number of xattrs possible using the
> lsm_blob_sizes values and passes a pointer to the individual LSMs
> which is incremented based on how many xattrs are created by the
> individual LSMs.  Here is some *very* rough pseudo code:
> 
> int security_inode_init_security(...)
> {
> 
>   /* allocate an xattr array */
>   xattrs = kcalloc(blob_sizes, sizeof(*xattrs), GFP_BLAH);
> 
>   /* loop on the lsms */
>   xa_cnt = 0;
>   while (lsm_hooks) {
>     rc = call_hook(lsm_hook, &xattrs[xa_cnt]);
>     if (rc > 0)
>       xa_cnt += rc;
>   }
> 
>   /* evm magic */
>   evm_inode_init_security(...)
> }
> 
> Does that work?  Am I missing something?

Oh, unfortunately not. EVM needs to see all xattrs (when it is moved to
the LSM infrastructure).

Thanks

Roberto
  

On Fri, 2023-03-24 at 17:19 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 6:18 AM Roberto Sassu
> <roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2023-03-23 at 20:09 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 4:19 AM Roberto Sassu
> > > <roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com> wrote:
> > > > From: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
> > > > 
> > > > Currently, security_inode_init_security() supports only one LSM providing
> > > > an xattr and EVM calculating the HMAC on that xattr, plus other inode
> > > > metadata.
> > > > 
> > > > Allow all LSMs to provide one or multiple xattrs, by extending the security
> > > > blob reservation mechanism. Introduce the new lbs_xattr field of the
> > > > lsm_blob_sizes structure, so that each LSM can specify how many xattrs it
> > > > needs, and the LSM infrastructure knows how many xattr slots it should
> > > > allocate.
> > > > 
> > > > Dynamically allocate the xattrs array to be populated by LSMs with the
> > > > inode_init_security hook, and pass it to the latter instead of the
> > > > name/value/len triple. Update the documentation accordingly, and fix the
> > > > description of the xattr name, as it is not allocated anymore.
> > > > 
> > > > Since the LSM infrastructure, at initialization time, updates the number of
> > > > the requested xattrs provided by each LSM with a corresponding offset in
> > > > the security blob (in this case the xattr array), it makes straightforward
> > > > for an LSM to access the right position in the xattr array.
> > > > 
> > > > There is still the issue that an LSM might not fill the xattr, even if it
> > > > requests it (legitimate case, for example it might have been loaded but not
> > > > initialized with a policy). Since users of the xattr array (e.g. the
> > > > initxattrs() callbacks) detect the end of the xattr array by checking if
> > > > the xattr name is NULL, not filling an xattr would cause those users to
> > > > stop scanning xattrs prematurely.
> > > > 
> > > > Solve that issue by introducing security_check_compact_filled_xattrs(),
> > > > which does a basic check of the xattr array (if the xattr name is filled,
> > > > the xattr value should be too, and viceversa), and compacts the xattr array
> > > > by removing the holes.
> > > > 
> > > > An alternative solution would be to let users of the xattr array know the
> > > > number of elements of that array, so that they don't have to check the
> > > > termination. However, this seems more invasive, compared to a simple move
> > > > of few array elements.
> > > > 
> > > > security_check_compact_filled_xattrs() also determines how many xattrs in
> > > > the xattr array have been filled. If there is none, skip
> > > > evm_inode_init_security() and initxattrs(). Skipping the former also avoids
> > > > EVM to crash the kernel, as it is expecting a filled xattr.
> > > > 
> > > > Finally, adapt both SELinux and Smack to use the new definition of the
> > > > inode_init_security hook, and to correctly fill the designated slots in the
> > > > xattr array. For Smack, reserve space for the other defined xattrs although
> > > > they are not set yet in smack_inode_init_security().
> > > > 
> > > > Reported-by: Nicolas Bouchinet <nicolas.bouchinet@clip-os.org> (EVM crash)
> > > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/Y1FTSIo+1x+4X0LS@archlinux/
> > > > Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
> > > > Reviewed-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
> > > > Reviewed-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h |   3 +-
> > > >  include/linux/lsm_hooks.h     |   1 +
> > > >  security/security.c           | 119 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> > > >  security/selinux/hooks.c      |  19 ++++--
> > > >  security/smack/smack_lsm.c    |  33 ++++++----
> > > >  5 files changed, 137 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-)
> 
> ...
> 
> > > > @@ -1604,33 +1654,66 @@ int security_inode_init_security(struct inode *inode, struct inode *dir,
> > > >                                  const struct qstr *qstr,
> > > >                                  const initxattrs initxattrs, void *fs_data)
> > > >  {
> > > > -       struct xattr new_xattrs[MAX_LSM_EVM_XATTR + 1];
> > > > -       struct xattr *lsm_xattr, *evm_xattr, *xattr;
> > > > -       int ret;
> > > > +       struct security_hook_list *P;
> > > > +       struct xattr *new_xattrs;
> > > > +       struct xattr *xattr;
> > > > +       int ret = -EOPNOTSUPP, num_filled_xattrs = 0;
> > > > 
> > > >         if (unlikely(IS_PRIVATE(inode)))
> > > >                 return 0;
> > > > 
> > > > +       if (!blob_sizes.lbs_xattr)
> > > > +               return 0;
> > > > +
> > > >         if (!initxattrs)
> > > >                 return call_int_hook(inode_init_security, -EOPNOTSUPP, inode,
> > > > -                                    dir, qstr, NULL, NULL, NULL);
> > > > -       memset(new_xattrs, 0, sizeof(new_xattrs));
> > > > -       lsm_xattr = new_xattrs;
> > > > -       ret = call_int_hook(inode_init_security, -EOPNOTSUPP, inode, dir, qstr,
> > > > -                           &lsm_xattr->name,
> > > > -                           &lsm_xattr->value,
> > > > -                           &lsm_xattr->value_len);
> > > > -       if (ret)
> > > > +                                   dir, qstr, NULL);
> > > > +       /* Allocate +1 for EVM and +1 as terminator. */
> > > > +       new_xattrs = kcalloc(blob_sizes.lbs_xattr + 2, sizeof(*new_xattrs),
> > > > +                            GFP_NOFS);
> > > > +       if (!new_xattrs)
> > > > +               return -ENOMEM;
> > > > +
> > > > +       hlist_for_each_entry(P, &security_hook_heads.inode_init_security,
> > > > +                            list) {
> > > > +               ret = P->hook.inode_init_security(inode, dir, qstr, new_xattrs);
> > > > +               if (ret && ret != -EOPNOTSUPP)
> > > > +                       goto out;
> > > > +               /*
> > > > +                * As documented in lsm_hooks.h, -EOPNOTSUPP in this context
> > > > +                * means that the LSM is not willing to provide an xattr, not
> > > > +                * that it wants to signal an error. Thus, continue to invoke
> > > > +                * the remaining LSMs.
> > > > +                */
> > > > +               if (ret == -EOPNOTSUPP)
> > > > +                       continue;
> > > > +               /*
> > > > +                * As the number of xattrs reserved by LSMs is not directly
> > > > +                * available, directly use the total number blob_sizes.lbs_xattr
> > > > +                * to keep the code simple, while being not the most efficient
> > > > +                * way.
> > > > +                */
> > > 
> > > Is there a good reason why the LSM can't return the number of xattrs
> > > it is adding to the xattr array?  It seems like it should be fairly
> > > trivial for the individual LSMs to determine and it could save a lot
> > > of work.  However, given we're at v8 on this patchset I'm sure I'm
> > > missing something obvious, can you help me understand why the idea
> > > above is crazy stupid? ;)
> > 
> > Ok, I looked back at what I did for v3.
> > 
> > Moving from v3 to v4, I decided to put less burden on LSMs, and to make
> > all the processing from the LSM infrastructure side.
> 
> As a general rule I think it's a good goal to keep the LSM layer as
> small as possible; I believe it allows us to be more flexible with the
> LSMs and it keeps the LSM as simple as possible.  I mean less code,
> less bugs, amirite? ... ;)
> 
> > v3 had some safeguards to prevent some programming mistakes by LSMs,
> > which maybe made the code less understandable.
> > 
> > However, if we say we keep things as simple as possible and assume that
> > LSMs implement this correctly, we can just pass num_filled_xattrs to
> > them and they simply increment it.
> > 
> > The EVM bug should not arise (accessing xattr->name = NULL), even if
> > BPF LSM alone returns zero, due to the check of num_filled_xattrs
> > before calling evm_inode_init_security().
> > 
> > Patch 6 (at the end) will prevent the bug from arising when EVM is
> > moved to the LSM infrastructure (no num_filled_xattrs check anymore).
> > There is a loop that stops if xattr->name is NULL, so
> > evm_protected_xattr() will not be called.
> > 
> > Or, like you suggested, we just return a positive value from LSMs and
> > we keep num_filled_xattrs in security_inode_init_security().
> 
> I like the idea of individual LSMs simply reporting the number of
> xattrs they've generated instead of incrementing the num_filled_xattrs
> variable.
> 
> It seems like returning the xattr count as a positive return value
> should work just fine, leaving negative values for errors, but if you
> run into problems you can always pass the value back in a new
> parameter pointer if needed.
> 
> > > > @@ -2868,11 +2870,11 @@ static int selinux_dentry_create_files_as(struct dentry *dentry, int mode,
> > > > 
> > > >  static int selinux_inode_init_security(struct inode *inode, struct inode *dir,
> > > >                                        const struct qstr *qstr,
> > > > -                                      const char **name,
> > > > -                                      void **value, size_t *len)
> > > > +                                      struct xattr *xattrs)
> > > >  {
> > > >         const struct task_security_struct *tsec = selinux_cred(current_cred());
> > > >         struct superblock_security_struct *sbsec;
> > > > +       struct xattr *xattr = NULL;
> > > >         u32 newsid, clen;
> > > >         int rc;
> > > >         char *context;
> > > > @@ -2899,16 +2901,18 @@ static int selinux_inode_init_security(struct inode *inode, struct inode *dir,
> > > >             !(sbsec->flags & SBLABEL_MNT))
> > > >                 return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > > > 
> > > > -       if (name)
> > > > -               *name = XATTR_SELINUX_SUFFIX;
> > > > +       if (xattrs)
> > > > +               xattr = xattrs + selinux_blob_sizes.lbs_xattr;
> > > 
> > > Please abstract that away to an inline function similar to
> > > selinux_cred(), selinux_file(), selinux_inode(), etc.
> > 
> > Ok.
> > 
> > > > +       if (xattr) {
> > > > +               xattr->name = XATTR_SELINUX_SUFFIX;
> > > 
> > > I'm guessing the xattr->name assignment is always done, regardless of
> > > if security_sid_to_context_force() is successful, due to the -EINVAL
> > > check in security_check_compact_filled_xattrs()?  If yes, it would be
> > > good to make note of that here in the code.  If not, it would be nice
> > > to move this down the function to go with the other xattr->XXX
> > > assignments, unless there is another reason for its placement that I'm
> > > missing.
> > 
> > Uhm, if an LSM returns an error, security_inode_init_security() stops
> > and does the cleanup. It should not matter if xattr->name was set.
> 
> Okay, I thought I might be missing something during the review.  Since
> there is no special reason for putting the xattr->name assignment up
> there, please move it down below with the other xattr->XXX
> assignments.

Ok, will do.

Thanks

Roberto
  

On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 3:30 AM Roberto Sassu
<roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2023-03-24 at 17:39 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 9:26 AM Roberto Sassu
> > <roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2023-03-24 at 11:18 +0100, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2023-03-23 at 20:09 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 4:19 AM Roberto Sassu
> > > > > <roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com> wrote:
> > > > > > From: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Currently, security_inode_init_security() supports only one LSM providing
> > > > > > an xattr and EVM calculating the HMAC on that xattr, plus other inode
> > > > > > metadata.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Allow all LSMs to provide one or multiple xattrs, by extending the security
> > > > > > blob reservation mechanism. Introduce the new lbs_xattr field of the
> > > > > > lsm_blob_sizes structure, so that each LSM can specify how many xattrs it
> > > > > > needs, and the LSM infrastructure knows how many xattr slots it should
> > > > > > allocate.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dynamically allocate the xattrs array to be populated by LSMs with the
> > > > > > inode_init_security hook, and pass it to the latter instead of the
> > > > > > name/value/len triple. Update the documentation accordingly, and fix the
> > > > > > description of the xattr name, as it is not allocated anymore.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Since the LSM infrastructure, at initialization time, updates the number of
> > > > > > the requested xattrs provided by each LSM with a corresponding offset in
> > > > > > the security blob (in this case the xattr array), it makes straightforward
> > > > > > for an LSM to access the right position in the xattr array.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is still the issue that an LSM might not fill the xattr, even if it
> > > > > > requests it (legitimate case, for example it might have been loaded but not
> > > > > > initialized with a policy). Since users of the xattr array (e.g. the
> > > > > > initxattrs() callbacks) detect the end of the xattr array by checking if
> > > > > > the xattr name is NULL, not filling an xattr would cause those users to
> > > > > > stop scanning xattrs prematurely.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Solve that issue by introducing security_check_compact_filled_xattrs(),
> > > > > > which does a basic check of the xattr array (if the xattr name is filled,
> > > > > > the xattr value should be too, and viceversa), and compacts the xattr array
> > > > > > by removing the holes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > An alternative solution would be to let users of the xattr array know the
> > > > > > number of elements of that array, so that they don't have to check the
> > > > > > termination. However, this seems more invasive, compared to a simple move
> > > > > > of few array elements.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > security_check_compact_filled_xattrs() also determines how many xattrs in
> > > > > > the xattr array have been filled. If there is none, skip
> > > > > > evm_inode_init_security() and initxattrs(). Skipping the former also avoids
> > > > > > EVM to crash the kernel, as it is expecting a filled xattr.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Finally, adapt both SELinux and Smack to use the new definition of the
> > > > > > inode_init_security hook, and to correctly fill the designated slots in the
> > > > > > xattr array. For Smack, reserve space for the other defined xattrs although
> > > > > > they are not set yet in smack_inode_init_security().
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Reported-by: Nicolas Bouchinet <nicolas.bouchinet@clip-os.org> (EVM crash)
> > > > > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/Y1FTSIo+1x+4X0LS@archlinux/
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
> > > > > > Reviewed-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
> > > > > > Reviewed-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >  include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h |   3 +-
> > > > > >  include/linux/lsm_hooks.h     |   1 +
> > > > > >  security/security.c           | 119 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> > > > > >  security/selinux/hooks.c      |  19 ++++--
> > > > > >  security/smack/smack_lsm.c    |  33 ++++++----
> > > > > >  5 files changed, 137 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-)
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > > > > @@ -1604,33 +1654,66 @@ int security_inode_init_security(struct inode *inode, struct inode *dir,
> > > > > >                                  const struct qstr *qstr,
> > > > > >                                  const initxattrs initxattrs, void *fs_data)
> > > > > >  {
> > > > > > -       struct xattr new_xattrs[MAX_LSM_EVM_XATTR + 1];
> > > > > > -       struct xattr *lsm_xattr, *evm_xattr, *xattr;
> > > > > > -       int ret;
> > > > > > +       struct security_hook_list *P;
> > > > > > +       struct xattr *new_xattrs;
> > > > > > +       struct xattr *xattr;
> > > > > > +       int ret = -EOPNOTSUPP, num_filled_xattrs = 0;
> > > > > >
> > > > > >         if (unlikely(IS_PRIVATE(inode)))
> > > > > >                 return 0;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +       if (!blob_sizes.lbs_xattr)
> > > > > > +               return 0;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > >         if (!initxattrs)
> > > > > >                 return call_int_hook(inode_init_security, -EOPNOTSUPP, inode,
> > > > > > -                                    dir, qstr, NULL, NULL, NULL);
> > > > > > -       memset(new_xattrs, 0, sizeof(new_xattrs));
> > > > > > -       lsm_xattr = new_xattrs;
> > > > > > -       ret = call_int_hook(inode_init_security, -EOPNOTSUPP, inode, dir, qstr,
> > > > > > -                           &lsm_xattr->name,
> > > > > > -                           &lsm_xattr->value,
> > > > > > -                           &lsm_xattr->value_len);
> > > > > > -       if (ret)
> > > > > > +                                   dir, qstr, NULL);
> > > > > > +       /* Allocate +1 for EVM and +1 as terminator. */
> > > > > > +       new_xattrs = kcalloc(blob_sizes.lbs_xattr + 2, sizeof(*new_xattrs),
> > > > > > +                            GFP_NOFS);
> > > > > > +       if (!new_xattrs)
> > > > > > +               return -ENOMEM;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +       hlist_for_each_entry(P, &security_hook_heads.inode_init_security,
> > > > > > +                            list) {
> > > > > > +               ret = P->hook.inode_init_security(inode, dir, qstr, new_xattrs);
> > > > > > +               if (ret && ret != -EOPNOTSUPP)
> > > > > > +                       goto out;
> > > > > > +               /*
> > > > > > +                * As documented in lsm_hooks.h, -EOPNOTSUPP in this context
> > > > > > +                * means that the LSM is not willing to provide an xattr, not
> > > > > > +                * that it wants to signal an error. Thus, continue to invoke
> > > > > > +                * the remaining LSMs.
> > > > > > +                */
> > > > > > +               if (ret == -EOPNOTSUPP)
> > > > > > +                       continue;
> > > > > > +               /*
> > > > > > +                * As the number of xattrs reserved by LSMs is not directly
> > > > > > +                * available, directly use the total number blob_sizes.lbs_xattr
> > > > > > +                * to keep the code simple, while being not the most efficient
> > > > > > +                * way.
> > > > > > +                */
> > > > >
> > > > > Is there a good reason why the LSM can't return the number of xattrs
> > > > > it is adding to the xattr array?  It seems like it should be fairly
> > > > > trivial for the individual LSMs to determine and it could save a lot
> > > > > of work.  However, given we're at v8 on this patchset I'm sure I'm
> > > > > missing something obvious, can you help me understand why the idea
> > > > > above is crazy stupid? ;)
> > >
> > > Much simple answer. Yes, LSMs could return the number of xattrs set,
> > > but security_check_compact_filled_xattrs() also needs to know from
> > > which offset (the lbs_xattr of each LSM) it should start compacting.
> > >
> > > Example: suppose that you have three LSMs with:
> > >
> > > LSM#1: lbs_xattr 1
> > > LSM#2: lbs_xattr 2 (disabled)
> > > LSM#3: lbs_xattr 1
> > >
> > > The current compaction interval is: already compacted xattrs - end of
> > > new_xattr array.
> > >
> > > When the security_inode_init_security() loop calls LSM#3, the
> > > compaction interval is: 1 - 2 (LSM#2 returns 0), which clearly isn't
> > > right. The correct compaction interval should be: 3 - 4.
> > >
> > > Going to the end of new_xattrs is an approximation, but it ensures
> > > that security_check_compact_filled_xattrs() reaches the xattr set by
> > > LSM#3.
> > >
> > > The alternative I was mentioning of passing num_filled_xattrs to LSMs
> > > goes again in the direction of doing on-the-fly compaction, while LSMs
> > > are more familiar with using the lbs_* fields.
> >
> > I guess I was thinking of the case where the LSM layer, i.e.
> > security_inode_init_security(), allocates an xattr array like it does
> > now based on the maximum number of xattrs possible using the
> > lsm_blob_sizes values and passes a pointer to the individual LSMs
> > which is incremented based on how many xattrs are created by the
> > individual LSMs.  Here is some *very* rough pseudo code:
> >
> > int security_inode_init_security(...)
> > {
> >
> >   /* allocate an xattr array */
> >   xattrs = kcalloc(blob_sizes, sizeof(*xattrs), GFP_BLAH);
> >
> >   /* loop on the lsms */
> >   xa_cnt = 0;
> >   while (lsm_hooks) {
> >     rc = call_hook(lsm_hook, &xattrs[xa_cnt]);
> >     if (rc > 0)
> >       xa_cnt += rc;
> >   }
> >
> >   /* evm magic */
> >   evm_inode_init_security(...)
> > }
> >
> > Does that work?  Am I missing something?
>
> Oh, unfortunately not. EVM needs to see all xattrs (when it is moved to
> the LSM infrastructure).

Okay, that's fair, but we could still pass the full xattrs array and a
reference to the current count which could be both read and updated by
the individual LSMs, right?

The issue is that the separate compaction stage is not something we
want to have to do if we can avoid it.  Maybe we're stuck with it, but
I'm not yet convinced that we can't make some minor changes to the
LSMs to avoid the compaction step.
  

On Mon, 2023-03-27 at 17:02 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 3:30 AM Roberto Sassu
> <roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2023-03-24 at 17:39 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 9:26 AM Roberto Sassu
> > > <roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2023-03-24 at 11:18 +0100, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 2023-03-23 at 20:09 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 4:19 AM Roberto Sassu
> > > > > > <roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > From: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Currently, security_inode_init_security() supports only one LSM providing
> > > > > > > an xattr and EVM calculating the HMAC on that xattr, plus other inode
> > > > > > > metadata.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Allow all LSMs to provide one or multiple xattrs, by extending the security
> > > > > > > blob reservation mechanism. Introduce the new lbs_xattr field of the
> > > > > > > lsm_blob_sizes structure, so that each LSM can specify how many xattrs it
> > > > > > > needs, and the LSM infrastructure knows how many xattr slots it should
> > > > > > > allocate.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Dynamically allocate the xattrs array to be populated by LSMs with the
> > > > > > > inode_init_security hook, and pass it to the latter instead of the
> > > > > > > name/value/len triple. Update the documentation accordingly, and fix the
> > > > > > > description of the xattr name, as it is not allocated anymore.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Since the LSM infrastructure, at initialization time, updates the number of
> > > > > > > the requested xattrs provided by each LSM with a corresponding offset in
> > > > > > > the security blob (in this case the xattr array), it makes straightforward
> > > > > > > for an LSM to access the right position in the xattr array.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > There is still the issue that an LSM might not fill the xattr, even if it
> > > > > > > requests it (legitimate case, for example it might have been loaded but not
> > > > > > > initialized with a policy). Since users of the xattr array (e.g. the
> > > > > > > initxattrs() callbacks) detect the end of the xattr array by checking if
> > > > > > > the xattr name is NULL, not filling an xattr would cause those users to
> > > > > > > stop scanning xattrs prematurely.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Solve that issue by introducing security_check_compact_filled_xattrs(),
> > > > > > > which does a basic check of the xattr array (if the xattr name is filled,
> > > > > > > the xattr value should be too, and viceversa), and compacts the xattr array
> > > > > > > by removing the holes.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > An alternative solution would be to let users of the xattr array know the
> > > > > > > number of elements of that array, so that they don't have to check the
> > > > > > > termination. However, this seems more invasive, compared to a simple move
> > > > > > > of few array elements.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > security_check_compact_filled_xattrs() also determines how many xattrs in
> > > > > > > the xattr array have been filled. If there is none, skip
> > > > > > > evm_inode_init_security() and initxattrs(). Skipping the former also avoids
> > > > > > > EVM to crash the kernel, as it is expecting a filled xattr.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Finally, adapt both SELinux and Smack to use the new definition of the
> > > > > > > inode_init_security hook, and to correctly fill the designated slots in the
> > > > > > > xattr array. For Smack, reserve space for the other defined xattrs although
> > > > > > > they are not set yet in smack_inode_init_security().
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Reported-by: Nicolas Bouchinet <nicolas.bouchinet@clip-os.org> (EVM crash)
> > > > > > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/Y1FTSIo+1x+4X0LS@archlinux/
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
> > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
> > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > >  include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h |   3 +-
> > > > > > >  include/linux/lsm_hooks.h     |   1 +
> > > > > > >  security/security.c           | 119 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> > > > > > >  security/selinux/hooks.c      |  19 ++++--
> > > > > > >  security/smack/smack_lsm.c    |  33 ++++++----
> > > > > > >  5 files changed, 137 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > ...
> > > 
> > > > > > > @@ -1604,33 +1654,66 @@ int security_inode_init_security(struct inode *inode, struct inode *dir,
> > > > > > >                                  const struct qstr *qstr,
> > > > > > >                                  const initxattrs initxattrs, void *fs_data)
> > > > > > >  {
> > > > > > > -       struct xattr new_xattrs[MAX_LSM_EVM_XATTR + 1];
> > > > > > > -       struct xattr *lsm_xattr, *evm_xattr, *xattr;
> > > > > > > -       int ret;
> > > > > > > +       struct security_hook_list *P;
> > > > > > > +       struct xattr *new_xattrs;
> > > > > > > +       struct xattr *xattr;
> > > > > > > +       int ret = -EOPNOTSUPP, num_filled_xattrs = 0;
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >         if (unlikely(IS_PRIVATE(inode)))
> > > > > > >                 return 0;
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > +       if (!blob_sizes.lbs_xattr)
> > > > > > > +               return 0;
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > >         if (!initxattrs)
> > > > > > >                 return call_int_hook(inode_init_security, -EOPNOTSUPP, inode,
> > > > > > > -                                    dir, qstr, NULL, NULL, NULL);
> > > > > > > -       memset(new_xattrs, 0, sizeof(new_xattrs));
> > > > > > > -       lsm_xattr = new_xattrs;
> > > > > > > -       ret = call_int_hook(inode_init_security, -EOPNOTSUPP, inode, dir, qstr,
> > > > > > > -                           &lsm_xattr->name,
> > > > > > > -                           &lsm_xattr->value,
> > > > > > > -                           &lsm_xattr->value_len);
> > > > > > > -       if (ret)
> > > > > > > +                                   dir, qstr, NULL);
> > > > > > > +       /* Allocate +1 for EVM and +1 as terminator. */
> > > > > > > +       new_xattrs = kcalloc(blob_sizes.lbs_xattr + 2, sizeof(*new_xattrs),
> > > > > > > +                            GFP_NOFS);
> > > > > > > +       if (!new_xattrs)
> > > > > > > +               return -ENOMEM;
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +       hlist_for_each_entry(P, &security_hook_heads.inode_init_security,
> > > > > > > +                            list) {
> > > > > > > +               ret = P->hook.inode_init_security(inode, dir, qstr, new_xattrs);
> > > > > > > +               if (ret && ret != -EOPNOTSUPP)
> > > > > > > +                       goto out;
> > > > > > > +               /*
> > > > > > > +                * As documented in lsm_hooks.h, -EOPNOTSUPP in this context
> > > > > > > +                * means that the LSM is not willing to provide an xattr, not
> > > > > > > +                * that it wants to signal an error. Thus, continue to invoke
> > > > > > > +                * the remaining LSMs.
> > > > > > > +                */
> > > > > > > +               if (ret == -EOPNOTSUPP)
> > > > > > > +                       continue;
> > > > > > > +               /*
> > > > > > > +                * As the number of xattrs reserved by LSMs is not directly
> > > > > > > +                * available, directly use the total number blob_sizes.lbs_xattr
> > > > > > > +                * to keep the code simple, while being not the most efficient
> > > > > > > +                * way.
> > > > > > > +                */
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Is there a good reason why the LSM can't return the number of xattrs
> > > > > > it is adding to the xattr array?  It seems like it should be fairly
> > > > > > trivial for the individual LSMs to determine and it could save a lot
> > > > > > of work.  However, given we're at v8 on this patchset I'm sure I'm
> > > > > > missing something obvious, can you help me understand why the idea
> > > > > > above is crazy stupid? ;)
> > > > 
> > > > Much simple answer. Yes, LSMs could return the number of xattrs set,
> > > > but security_check_compact_filled_xattrs() also needs to know from
> > > > which offset (the lbs_xattr of each LSM) it should start compacting.
> > > > 
> > > > Example: suppose that you have three LSMs with:
> > > > 
> > > > LSM#1: lbs_xattr 1
> > > > LSM#2: lbs_xattr 2 (disabled)
> > > > LSM#3: lbs_xattr 1
> > > > 
> > > > The current compaction interval is: already compacted xattrs - end of
> > > > new_xattr array.
> > > > 
> > > > When the security_inode_init_security() loop calls LSM#3, the
> > > > compaction interval is: 1 - 2 (LSM#2 returns 0), which clearly isn't
> > > > right. The correct compaction interval should be: 3 - 4.
> > > > 
> > > > Going to the end of new_xattrs is an approximation, but it ensures
> > > > that security_check_compact_filled_xattrs() reaches the xattr set by
> > > > LSM#3.
> > > > 
> > > > The alternative I was mentioning of passing num_filled_xattrs to LSMs
> > > > goes again in the direction of doing on-the-fly compaction, while LSMs
> > > > are more familiar with using the lbs_* fields.
> > > 
> > > I guess I was thinking of the case where the LSM layer, i.e.
> > > security_inode_init_security(), allocates an xattr array like it does
> > > now based on the maximum number of xattrs possible using the
> > > lsm_blob_sizes values and passes a pointer to the individual LSMs
> > > which is incremented based on how many xattrs are created by the
> > > individual LSMs.  Here is some *very* rough pseudo code:
> > > 
> > > int security_inode_init_security(...)
> > > {
> > > 
> > >   /* allocate an xattr array */
> > >   xattrs = kcalloc(blob_sizes, sizeof(*xattrs), GFP_BLAH);
> > > 
> > >   /* loop on the lsms */
> > >   xa_cnt = 0;
> > >   while (lsm_hooks) {
> > >     rc = call_hook(lsm_hook, &xattrs[xa_cnt]);
> > >     if (rc > 0)
> > >       xa_cnt += rc;
> > >   }
> > > 
> > >   /* evm magic */
> > >   evm_inode_init_security(...)
> > > }
> > > 
> > > Does that work?  Am I missing something?
> > 
> > Oh, unfortunately not. EVM needs to see all xattrs (when it is moved to
> > the LSM infrastructure).
> 
> Okay, that's fair, but we could still pass the full xattrs array and a
> reference to the current count which could be both read and updated by
> the individual LSMs, right?

Yes, we could do.

> The issue is that the separate compaction stage is not something we
> want to have to do if we can avoid it.  Maybe we're stuck with it, but
> I'm not yet convinced that we can't make some minor changes to the
> LSMs to avoid the compaction step.

I liked more the idea that LSMs do what they are most familiar with,
get an offset in a security blob or, in this case, a starting slot in
the new_xattrs array, and write there.

v3 had the lsm_find_xattr_slot() helper, to get the starting slot, but
somehow I find it less intuitive.

Ok, if you prefer to avoid the compaction stage, I will rewrite this
patch.

Thanks

Roberto
  

On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 3:47 AM Roberto Sassu
<roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2023-03-27 at 17:02 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 3:30 AM Roberto Sassu
> > <roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2023-03-24 at 17:39 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 9:26 AM Roberto Sassu
> > > > <roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, 2023-03-24 at 11:18 +0100, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, 2023-03-23 at 20:09 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 4:19 AM Roberto Sassu
> > > > > > > <roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > From: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>

...

> > Okay, that's fair, but we could still pass the full xattrs array and a
> > reference to the current count which could be both read and updated by
> > the individual LSMs, right?
>
> Yes, we could do.
>
> > The issue is that the separate compaction stage is not something we
> > want to have to do if we can avoid it.  Maybe we're stuck with it, but
> > I'm not yet convinced that we can't make some minor changes to the
> > LSMs to avoid the compaction step.
>
> I liked more the idea that LSMs do what they are most familiar with,
> get an offset in a security blob or, in this case, a starting slot in
> the new_xattrs array, and write there.
>
> v3 had the lsm_find_xattr_slot() helper, to get the starting slot, but
> somehow I find it less intuitive.
>
> Ok, if you prefer to avoid the compaction stage, I will rewrite this
> patch.

My concern is having to look through the xattr array after each LSM
has been run and in at least one case having to then do a memcpy() to
keep the array packed.  There are some cases where there is no way to
avoid all that extra work, but here I think we have the LSMs do the
Right Thing with respect to packing the xattr array without overly
burdening the individual LSMs.

Does that make sense?  It basically comes down to being smart about
our abstractions and both selectively, and carefully, breaking them
when there is a reasonable performance gain to be had.
  

On Tue, 2023-03-28 at 16:19 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 3:47 AM Roberto Sassu
> <roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2023-03-27 at 17:02 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 3:30 AM Roberto Sassu
> > > <roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2023-03-24 at 17:39 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 9:26 AM Roberto Sassu
> > > > > <roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, 2023-03-24 at 11:18 +0100, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thu, 2023-03-23 at 20:09 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 4:19 AM Roberto Sassu
> > > > > > > > <roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > From: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
> 
> ...
> 
> > > Okay, that's fair, but we could still pass the full xattrs array and a
> > > reference to the current count which could be both read and updated by
> > > the individual LSMs, right?
> > 
> > Yes, we could do.
> > 
> > > The issue is that the separate compaction stage is not something we
> > > want to have to do if we can avoid it.  Maybe we're stuck with it, but
> > > I'm not yet convinced that we can't make some minor changes to the
> > > LSMs to avoid the compaction step.
> > 
> > I liked more the idea that LSMs do what they are most familiar with,
> > get an offset in a security blob or, in this case, a starting slot in
> > the new_xattrs array, and write there.
> > 
> > v3 had the lsm_find_xattr_slot() helper, to get the starting slot, but
> > somehow I find it less intuitive.
> > 
> > Ok, if you prefer to avoid the compaction stage, I will rewrite this
> > patch.
> 
> My concern is having to look through the xattr array after each LSM
> has been run and in at least one case having to then do a memcpy() to
> keep the array packed.  There are some cases where there is no way to
> avoid all that extra work, but here I think we have the LSMs do the
> Right Thing with respect to packing the xattr array without overly
> burdening the individual LSMs.
> 
> Does that make sense?  It basically comes down to being smart about
> our abstractions and both selectively, and carefully, breaking them
> when there is a reasonable performance gain to be had.

Yes, ok, it is a good approach.

Thanks

Roberto