Re: [PATCH v1 0/2] Add LSM access controls for io_uring_setup

[Dmytro Maluka <dmy@semihalf.com>]

On 8/9/23 16:49, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 9, 2023 at 7:22 AM Dmytro Maluka <dmy@semihalf.com> wrote:
>> On 8/9/23 02:31, Paul Moore wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 4:40 PM Dmytro Maluka <dmy@semihalf.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11/10/22 22:04, Paul Moore wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 12:54 PM Jeffrey Vander Stoep <jeffv@google.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 10:17 PM Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 3:58 PM Gil Cukierman <cukie@google.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This patchset provides the changes required for controlling access to
>>>>>>>> the io_uring_setup system call by LSMs. It does this by adding a new
>>>>>>>> hook to io_uring. It also provides the SELinux implementation for a new
>>>>>>>> permission, io_uring { setup }, using the new hook.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is important because existing io_uring hooks only support limiting
>>>>>>>> the sharing of credentials and access to the sensitive uring_cmd file
>>>>>>>> op. Users of LSMs may also want the ability to tightly control which
>>>>>>>> callers can retrieve an io_uring capable fd from the kernel, which is
>>>>>>>> needed for all subsequent io_uring operations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It isn't immediately obvious to me why simply obtaining a io_uring fd
>>>>>>> from io_uring_setup() would present a problem, as the security
>>>>>>> relevant operations that are possible with that io_uring fd *should*
>>>>>>> still be controlled by other LSM hooks.  Can you help me understand
>>>>>>> what security issue you are trying to resolve with this control?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think there are a few reasons why we want this particular hook.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1.  It aligns well with how other resources are managed by selinux
>>>>>> where access to the resource is the first control point (e.g. "create"
>>>>>> for files, sockets, or bpf_maps, "prog_load" for bpf programs, and
>>>>>> "open" for perf_event) and then additional functionality or
>>>>>> capabilities require additional permissions.
>>>>>
>>>>> [NOTE: there were two reply sections in your email, and while similar,
>>>>> they were not identical; I've trimmed the other for the sake of
>>>>> clarity]
>>>>>
>>>>> The resources you mention are all objects which contain some type of
>>>>> information (either user data, configuration, or program
>>>>> instructions), with the resulting fd being a handle to those objects.
>>>>> In the case of io_uring the fd is a handle to the io_uring
>>>>> interface/rings, which by itself does not contain any information
>>>>> which is not already controlled by other permissions.
>>>>>
>>>>> I/O operations which transfer data between the io_uring buffers and
>>>>> other system objects, e.g. IORING_OP_READV, are still subject to the
>>>>> same file access controls as those done by the application using
>>>>> syscalls.  Even the IORING_OP_OPENAT command goes through the standard
>>>>> VFS code path which means it will trigger the same access control
>>>>> checks as an open*() done by the application normally.
>>>>>
>>>>> The 'interesting' scenarios are those where the io_uring operation
>>>>> servicing credentials, aka personalities, differ from the task
>>>>> controlling the io_uring.  However in those cases we have the new
>>>>> io_uring controls to gate these delegated operations.  Passing an
>>>>> io_uring fd is subject to the fd/use permission like any other fd.
>>>>>
>>>>> Although perhaps the most relevant to your request is the fact that
>>>>> the io_uring inode is created using the new(ish) secure anon inode
>>>>> interface which ensures that the creating task has permission to
>>>>> create an io_uring.  This io_uring inode label also comes into play
>>>>> when a task attempts to mmap() the io_uring rings, a critical part of
>>>>> the io_uring API.
>>>>>
>>>>> If I'm missing something you believe to be important, please share the details.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. It aligns well with how resources are managed on Android. We often
>>>>>> do not grant direct access to resources (like memory buffers).
>>>>>
>>>>> Accessing the io_uring buffers requires a task to mmap() the io_uring
>>>>> fd which is controlled by the normal SELinux mmap() access controls.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 3. Attack surface management. One of the primary uses of selinux on
>>>>>> Android is to assess and limit attack surface (e.g.
>>>>>> https://twitter.com/jeffvanderstoep/status/1422771606309335043) . As
>>>>>> io_uring vulnerabilities have made their way through our vulnerability
>>>>>> management system, it's become apparent that it's complicated to
>>>>>> assess the impact. Is a use-after-free reachable? Creating
>>>>>> proof-of-concept exploits takes a lot of time, and often functionality
>>>>>> can be reached by multiple paths. How many of the known io_uring
>>>>>> vulnerabilities would be gated by the existing checks? How many future
>>>>>> ones will be gated by the existing checks? I don't know the answer to
>>>>>> either of these questions and it's not obvious. This hook makes that
>>>>>> initial assessment simple and effective.
>>>>>
>>>>> It should be possible to deny access to io_uring via the anonymous
>>>>> inode labels, the mmap() controls, and the fd/use permission.  If you
>>>>> find a way to do meaningful work with an io_uring fd that can't be
>>>>> controlled via an existing permission check please let me know.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you a lot for this explanation. However, IMHO we should not
>>>> confuse 2 somewhat different problems here:
>>>>
>>>> - protecting io_uring related resources (file descriptors, memory
>>>>   buffers) against unauthorized access
>>>>
>>>> - protecting the entire system against potential vulnerabilities in
>>>>   io_uring
>>>>
>>>> And while I agree that the existing permission checks should be already
>>>> sufficient for the former, I'm not quite sure they are sufficient for
>>>> the latter.
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> I already have a PoC patch [3] adding such LSM hook. But before I try to
>>>> submit it for upstream, I'd like to know your opinion on the whole idea.
>>>
>>> First please explain how the existing LSM/SELinux control points are
>>> not sufficient for restricting io_uring operations.  I'm looking for a
>>> real program flow that is able to "do meaningful work with an io_uring
>>> fd that can't be controlled via an existing permission check".
>>
>> As I said at the beginning of my reply, I agree with you that the
>> existing LSM controls are sufficient for restricting io_uring I/O
>> operations. That is not my concern here. The concern is: how to (and
>> do we need to) restrict triggering execution of *any* io_uring code in
>> kernel, *in addition to* restricting the actual io_uring operations.
> 
> If your concern is preventing *any* io_uring code from being executed,
> I would suggest simply not enabling io_uring at build time.  If you
> need to selectively enable io_uring for some subset of processes, you
> will need to make use of one of the options you discussed previously,
> e.g. a LSM, seccomp, etc.
> 
> From a LSM perspective, I don't believe we want to be in the business
> of blocking entire kernel subsystems from execution, rather we want to
> provide control points so that admins and users can have better, or
> more granular control over the security relevant operations that take
> place within the different kernel subsystems.
> 
>> In other words, "a real program doing a meaningful work with io_uring"
>> in this case would mean "an exploit for a real vulnerability in io_uring
>> code (in the current or any older kernel) which does not require an
>> access to io_uring operations to be exploited". I don't claim that such
>> vulnerabilities exist or are likely to be introduced in future kernels.
>> But I'm neither an io_uring expert nor, more importantly, a security
>> expert, so I cannot tell with confidence that they are not and we have
>> nothing to worry about here. So I'm interested in your and others'
>> opinion on that.
> 
> Once again, if you have serious concerns about the security or safety
> of an individual kernel subsystem, your best option is to simply build
> a kernel without that subsystem enabled.

Thanks for the answer. Yeah, disabling a problematic kernel subsystem at
build time is surely the safest option (and that is what we are already
doing in ChromeOS for io_uring, for that matter), and if we still want
to enable it for a limited subset of processes, it seems the cleanest
option is to use seccomp, rather than to add new ad-hoc LSM hooks for
blocking a specific subsystem.

One of the angles I'm coming from is actually the following:

- Android currently enables io_uring but limits its use to a few
  processes. But the way Android does that is by relying on the existing
  SELinux access controls for io_uring resources [1][2], rather than by
  preventing execution of any io_uring code via seccomp or other means.

  I guess the reason why Android doesn't use seccomp for that is the
  downsides of seccomp which I mentioned previously: in short, seccomp
  is well-suited for selectively denying syscalls for specific
  processes, but not so well-suited for selectively allowing them.

  So one of the questions I'm wondering about is: if Android implemented
  preventing execution of any io_uring code by non-trusted processes
  (via seccomp or any other way), how much would it help to reduce the
  risk of attacks, compared to its current SELinux based solution?

- ChromeOS currently completely disables io_uring in kernel, but we do
  want to allow it for a limited set of processes similarly to Android,
  and we are exploring ways to do it securely. Thus the above
  considerations for Android apply to ChromeOS as well.

[1] https://android-review.git.corp.google.com/c/platform/system/sepolicy/+/2302679
[2] https://android-review.git.corp.google.com/c/platform/system/sepolicy/+/2302679/6/public/te_macros