Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] apparmor: Enforce progressively tighter permissions
 for no_new_privs
To:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        James Morris <james.l.morris@oracle.com>,
        apparmor@lists.ubuntu.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>
References: <87lfcn5mfz.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
From:   John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com>
Autocrypt: addr=john.johansen@canonical.com; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata=
 LS0tLS1CRUdJTiBQR1AgUFVCTElDIEtFWSBCTE9DSy0tLS0tCgptUUlOQkU1bXJQb0JFQURB
 azE5UHNnVmdCS2tJbW1SMmlzUFE2bzdLSmhUVEtqSmR3VmJrV1NuTm4rbzZVcDVrCm5LUDFm
 NDlFQlFsY2VXZzF5cC9Od2JSOGFkK2VTRU8vdW1hL0srUHFXdkJwdEtDOVNXRDk3Rkc0dUI0
 L2Nhb20KTEVVOTdzTFFNdG52R1dkeHJ4VlJHTTRhbnpXWU1neno1VFptSWlWVFo0M091NVZw
 YVMxVnoxWlN4UDNoL3hLTgpaci9UY1c1V1FhaTh1M1BXVm5ia2poU1pQSHYxQmdoTjY5cXhF
 UG9tckpCbTFnbXR4M1ppVm1GWGx1d1RtVGdKCk9rcEZvbDduYkowaWxuWUhyQTdTWDNDdFIx
 dXBlVXBNYS9XSWFuVk85NldkVGpISElhNDNmYmhtUXViZTR0eFMKM0ZjUUxPSlZxUXN4NmxF
 OUI3cUFwcG05aFExMHFQV3dkZlB5LyswVzZBV3ROdTVBU2lHVkNJbld6bDJIQnFZZAovWmxs
 OTN6VXErTklvQ244c0RBTTlpSCt3dGFHRGNKeXdJR0luK2VkS050SzcyQU1nQ2hUZy9qMVpv
 V0g2WmVXClBqdVVmdWJWelp0bzFGTW9HSi9TRjRNbWRRRzFpUU50ZjRzRlpiRWdYdXk5Y0dp
 MmJvbUYwenZ5QkpTQU5weGwKS05CRFlLek42S3owOUhVQWtqbEZNTmdvbUwvY2pxZ0FCdEF4
 NTlMK2RWSVpmYUYyODFwSWNVWnp3dmg1K0pvRwplT1c1dUJTTWJFN0wzOG5zem9veWtJSjVY
 ckFjaGtKeE5mejdrK0ZuUWVLRWtOekVkMkxXYzNRRjRCUVpZUlQ2ClBISGdhM1JneWtXNSsx
 d1RNcUpJTGRtdGFQYlhyRjNGdm5WMExSUGN2NHhLeDdCM2ZHbTd5Z2Rvb3dBUkFRQUIKdEIx
 S2IyaHVJRXB2YUdGdWMyVnVJRHhxYjJodVFHcHFiWGd1Ym1WMFBva0NPZ1FUQVFvQUpBSWJB
 d1VMQ1FnSApBd1VWQ2drSUN3VVdBZ01CQUFJZUFRSVhnQVVDVG8wWVZ3SVpBUUFLQ1JBRkx6
 WndHTlhEMkx4SkQvOVRKWkNwCndsbmNUZ1llcmFFTWVEZmtXdjhjMUlzTTFqMEFtRTRWdEwr
 ZkU3ODBaVlA5Z2tqZ2tkWVN4dDdlY0VUUFRLTWEKWlNpc3JsMVJ3cVUwb29nWGRYUVNweHJH
 SDAxaWN1LzJuMGpjWVNxWUtnZ1B4eTc4QkdzMkxacTRYUGZKVFptSApaR25YR3EvZURyL21T
 bmowYWF2QkptTVo2amJpUHo2eUh0QllQWjlmZG84YnRjendQNDFZZVdvSXUyNi84SUk2CmYw
 WG0zVkM1b0FhOHY3UmQrUldaYThUTXdsaHpIRXh4ZWwzanRJN0l6ek9zbm1FOS84RG0wQVJE
 NWlUTENYd1IKMWN3SS9KOUJGL1MxWHY4UE4xaHVUM0l0Q05kYXRncDh6cW9Ka2dQVmptdnlM
 NjRRM2ZFa1liZkhPV3NhYmE5LwprQVZ0Qk56OVJURmg3SUhEZkVDVmFUb3VqQmQ3QnRQcXIr
 cUlqV0ZhZEpEM0k1ZUxDVkp2VnJyb2xyQ0FUbEZ0Ck4zWWtRczZKbjFBaUlWSVUzYkhSOEdq
 ZXZnejVMbDZTQ0dIZ1Jya3lScG5TWWFVL3VMZ24zN042QVl4aS9RQUwKK2J5M0N5RUZManpX
 QUV2eVE4YnEzSXVjbjdKRWJoUy9KLy9kVXFMb2VVZjh0c0dpMDB6bXJJVFpZZUZZQVJoUQpN
 dHNmaXpJclZEdHoxaVBmL1pNcDVnUkJuaXlqcFhuMTMxY20zTTNndjZIclFzQUdubjhBSnJ1
 OEdEaTVYSllJCmNvLzEreC9xRWlOMm5DbGFBT3BiaHpOMmVVdlBEWTVXMHEzYkEvWnAybWZH
 NTJ2YlJJK3RRMEJyMUhkL3ZzbnQKVUhPOTAzbU1aZXAyTnpOM0JaNXFFdlB2RzRyVzVacTJE
 cHliV2JRclNtOW9iaUJLYjJoaGJuTmxiaUE4YW05bwpiaTVxYjJoaGJuTmxia0JqWVc1dmJt
 bGpZV3d1WTI5dFBva0NOd1FUQVFvQUlRVUNUbzBYV2dJYkF3VUxDUWdICkF3VVZDZ2tJQ3dV
 V0FnTUJBQUllQVFJWGdBQUtDUkFGTHpad0dOWEQySXRNRC85anliYzg3ZE00dUFIazZ5Tk0K
 TjBZL0JGbW10VFdWc09CaHFPbm9iNGkzOEJyRE8yQzFoUUNQQ1FlNExMczEvNHB0ZW92UXQ4
 QjJGeXJQVmp3Zwo3alpUSE5LNzRyNmxDQ1Z4eDN5dTFCN1U5UG80VlRrY3NsVmIxL3FtV3V4
 OFhXY040eXZrVHFsTCtHeHB5Sm45CjlaWmZmWEpjNk9oNlRtT2ZiS0d2TXV1djVhclNJQTNK
 SEZMZjlhTHZadEExaXNKVXI3cFM5YXBnOXVUVUdVcDcKd2ZWMFdUNlQzZUczbXRVVTJ1cDVK
 VjQ4NTBMMDVqSFM2dVdpZS9ZK3lmSk9iaXlyeE4vNlpxVzVHb25oTEJxLwptc3pjVjV2QlQz
 QkRWZTNSdkY2WGRNOU9oUG4xK1k4MXg1NCt2UTExM044aUx3RjdHR2ExNFp5SVZBTlpEMEkw
 CkhqUnZhMmsvUnFJUlR6S3l1UEg1cGtsY0tIVlBFRk1tT3pNVCtGT294Tmp2Uys3K3dHMktN
 RFlFbUhQcjFQSkIKWlNaZUh6SzE5dGZhbFBNcHBGeGkrc3lZTGFnTjBtQjdKSFF3WTdjclV1
 T0RoeWNxNjBZVnoxdGFFeWd1M1l2MgoyL0kxRUNHSHZLSEc2d2M5MG80M0MvZWxIRUNYbkVo
 N3RLcGxEY3BJQytPQ21NeEtIaFI0NitYY1p2Z3c0RGdiCjdjYTgzZVFSM0NHODlMdlFwVzJM
 TEtFRUJEajdoWmhrTGJra1BSWm0zdzhKWTQ0YXc4VnRneFdkblNFTUNMeEwKSU9OaDZ1Wjcv
 L0RZVnRjSWFNSllrZWJhWnRHZENwMElnVVpiMjQvVmR2WkNZYk82MkhrLzNWbzFuWHdIVUVz
 Mwo2RC92MWJUMFJaRmk2OUxnc0NjT2N4NGdZTGtDRFFST1pxejZBUkFBb3F3NmtrQmhXeU0x
 ZnZnYW1BVmplWjZuCktFZm5SV2JrQzk0TDFFc0pMdXAzV2IyWDBBQk5PSFNrYlNENHBBdUMy
 dEtGL0VHQnQ1Q1A3UWRWS1JHY1F6QWQKNmIyYzFJZHk5Ukx3Nnc0Z2krbm4vZDFQbTFra1lo
 a1NpNXpXYUlnMG01UlFVaytFbDh6a2Y1dGNFLzFOMFo1TwpLMkpoandGdTViWDBhMGw0Y0ZH
 V1ZRRWNpVk1ES1J0eE1qRXRrM1N4RmFsbTZaZFEycHAyODIyY2xucTR6WjltCld1MWQyd2F4
 aXorYjVJYTR3ZURZYTduNDFVUmNCRVViSkFnbmljSmtKdENUd3lJeElXMktuVnlPcmp2a1F6
 SUIKdmFQMEZkUDJ2dlpvUE1kbENJek9sSWtQTGd4RTBJV3VlVFhlQkpoTnMwMXBiOGJMcW1U
 SU1sdTRMdkJFTEEvdgplaWFqajVzOHk1NDJIL2FIc2ZCZjRNUVVoSHhPL0JaVjdoMDZLU1Vm
 SWFZN09nQWdLdUdOQjNVaWFJVVM1K2E5CmduRU9RTER4S1J5L2E3UTF2OVMrTnZ4KzdqOGlI
 M2prUUpoeFQ2WkJoWkdSeDBna0gzVCtGMG5ORG01TmFKVXMKYXN3Z0pycUZaa1VHZDJNcm0x
 cW5Ld1hpQXQ4U0ljRU5kcTMzUjBLS0tSQzgwWGd3ajhKbjMwdlhMU0crTk8xRwpIMFVNY0F4
 TXd5L3B2azZMVTVKR2paUjczSjVVTFZoSDRNTGJEZ2dEM21QYWlHOCtmb3RUckpVUHFxaGc5
 aHlVCkVQcFlHN3NxdDc0WG43OStDRVpjakxIenlsNnZBRkUyVzBreGxMdFF0VVpVSE8zNmFm
 RnY4cUdwTzNacVB2akIKVXVhdFhGNnR2VVFDd2YzSDZYTUFFUUVBQVlrQ0h3UVlBUW9BQ1FV
 Q1RtYXMrZ0liREFBS0NSQUZMelp3R05YRAoyRC9YRC8wZGRNLzRhaTFiK1RsMWp6bkthalgz
 a0crTWVFWWVJNGY0MHZjbzNyT0xyblJHRk9jYnl5ZlZGNjlNCktlcGllNE93b0kxamNUVTBB
 RGVjbmJXbkROSHByMFNjenhCTXJvM2Juckxoc212anVuVFlJdnNzQlp0QjRhVkoKanVMSUxQ
 VWxuaEZxYTdmYlZxMFpRamJpVi9ydDJqQkVOZG05cGJKWjZHam5wWUljQWJQQ0NhL2ZmTDQv
 U1FSUwpZSFhvaEdpaVM0eTVqQlRtSzVsdGZld0xPdzAyZmtleEgrSUpGcnJHQlhEU2c2bjJT
 Z3hubisrTkYzNGZYY205CnBpYXczbUtzSUNtKzBoZE5oNGFmR1o2SVdWOFBHMnRlb29WRHA0
 ZFlpaCsreFgvWFM4ekJDYzFPOXc0bnpsUDIKZ0t6bHFTV2JoaVdwaWZSSkJGYTRXdEFlSlRk
 WFlkMzdqL0JJNFJXV2hueXc3YUFQTkdqMzN5dEdITlVmNlJvMgovanRqNHRGMXkvUUZYcWpK
 Ry93R2pwZHRSZmJ0VWpxTEhJc3ZmUE5OSnEvOTU4cDc0bmRBQ2lkbFdTSHpqK09wCjI2S3Bi
 Rm5td05PMHBzaVVzbmh2SEZ3UE8vdkFibDNSc1I1KzBSbytodnMyY0VtUXV2OXIvYkRsQ2Zw
 enAydDMKY0srcmh4VXFpc094OERaZnoxQm5rYW9DUkZidnZ2ays3TC9mb21QbnRHUGtxSmNp
 WUU4VEdIa1p3MWhPa3UrNApPb00yR0I1bkVEbGorMlRGL2pMUStFaXBYOVBrUEpZdnhmUmxD
 NmRLOFBLS2ZYOUtkZm1BSWNnSGZuVjFqU24rCjh5SDJkakJQdEtpcVcwSjY5YUlzeXg3aVYv
 MDNwYVBDakpoN1hxOXZBenlkTjVVL1VBPT0KPTZQL2IKLS0tLS1FTkQgUEdQIFBVQkxJQyBL
 RVkgQkxPQ0stLS0tLQo=
Organization: Canonical
Message-ID: <c887b7f1-7c50-cd9d-fd97-b89274c2765c@canonical.com>
Date:   Wed, 20 Jan 2021 14:32:35 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <87lfcn5mfz.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 1/20/21 1:26 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> 
> The current understanding of apparmor with respect to no_new_privs is at
> odds with how no_new_privs is implemented and understood by the rest of
> the kernel.
> 
> The documentation of no_new_privs states:
>> With ``no_new_privs`` set, ``execve()`` promises not to grant the
>> privilege to do anything that could not have been done without the
>> execve call.
> 
> And reading through the kernel except for apparmor that description
> matches what is implemented.
> 

That is not correct.

commit 7b0d0b40cd78 ("selinux: Permit bounded transitions under
    NO_NEW_PRIVS or NOSUID.")

Allows for bound transitions under selinux
and

commit af63f4193f9f selinux: Generalize support for NNP/nosuid SELinux
    domain transitions

goes further and "Decouple NNP/nosuid from SELinux transitions". 

> There are two major divergences of apparmor from this definition:
> - proc_setattr enforces limitations when no_new_privs are set.
> - the limitation is enforced from the apparent time when no_new_privs is
>   set instead of guaranteeing that each execve has progressively more
>   narrow permissions.
> 
> The code in apparmor that attempts to discover the apparmor label at the
> point where no_new_privs is set is not robust.  The capture happens a
> long time after no_new_privs is set.
> 

yes, but that shouldn't matter. As apparmor has not changed its label
at any point between when no_new_privs was set and when the check is
done. AppArmor is attempting to change it label, and if it finds NNP
has been set we capture what the confinement was.

> Capturing the label at the point where no_new_privs is set is
> practically impossible to implement robustly.  Today the rule is struct
> cred can only be changed by it's current task.  Today

right, and apparmor only ever has the task update its own label.

> SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_TSYNC sets no_new_privs from another thread.  A
> robust implementation would require changing something fundamental in
> how creds are managed for SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_TSYNC to be able to
> capture the cred at the point it is set.
> 
I am open to supporting something like that.

> Futhermore given the consistent documentation and how everything else
> implements no_new_privs, not having the permissions get progressively

Again see above

> tighter is a footgun aimed at userspace.  I fully expect it to break any

tighter is somewhat relative, nor is it only progressively tighter it
is bounded against the snapshot of the label that was on the task.

> security sensitive software that uses no_new_privs and was not
> deliberately designed and tested against apparmor.
> 

Currently the situation has become either an either or choice between
the LSM and NNP. We are trying to walk a balance. Ideally apparmor
would like to do something similar to selinux and decouple the label
transition from NNP and nosuid via an internal capability, but we
have not gone there yet.

> Avoid the questionable and hard to fix implementation and the
> potential to confuse userspace by having no_new_privs enforce
> progressinvely tighter permissions.
> 

This would completely break several use cases.

> Fixes: 9fcf78cca198 ("apparmor: update domain transitions that are subsets of confinement at nnp")
> Signed-off-by: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>
> ---
> 
> I came accross this while examining the places cred_guard_mutex is
> used and trying to find a way to make those code paths less insane.
> 
> If it would be more pallatable I would not mind removing the
> task_no_new_privs test entirely from aa_change_hat and aa_change_profile
> as those are not part of exec, so arguably no_new_privs should not care
> about them at all.
> 
> Can we please get rid of the huge semantic wart and pain in the implementation?
> 
>  security/apparmor/domain.c       | 39 ++++----------------------------
>  security/apparmor/include/task.h |  4 ----
>  security/apparmor/task.c         |  7 ------
>  3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 46 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/security/apparmor/domain.c b/security/apparmor/domain.c
> index f919ebd042fd..8f77059bf890 100644
> --- a/security/apparmor/domain.c
> +++ b/security/apparmor/domain.c
> @@ -869,17 +869,6 @@ int apparmor_bprm_creds_for_exec(struct linux_binprm *bprm)
>  
>  	label = aa_get_newest_label(cred_label(bprm->cred));
>  
> -	/*
> -	 * Detect no new privs being set, and store the label it
> -	 * occurred under. Ideally this would happen when nnp
> -	 * is set but there isn't a good way to do that yet.
> -	 *
> -	 * Testing for unconfined must be done before the subset test
> -	 */
> -	if ((bprm->unsafe & LSM_UNSAFE_NO_NEW_PRIVS) && !unconfined(label) &&
> -	    !ctx->nnp)
> -		ctx->nnp = aa_get_label(label);
> -
>  	/* buffer freed below, name is pointer into buffer */
>  	buffer = aa_get_buffer(false);
>  	if (!buffer) {
> @@ -915,7 +904,7 @@ int apparmor_bprm_creds_for_exec(struct linux_binprm *bprm)
>  	 */
>  	if ((bprm->unsafe & LSM_UNSAFE_NO_NEW_PRIVS) &&
>  	    !unconfined(label) &&
> -	    !aa_label_is_unconfined_subset(new, ctx->nnp)) {
> +	    !aa_label_is_unconfined_subset(new, label)) {
>  		error = -EPERM;
>  		info = "no new privs";
>  		goto audit;
> @@ -1158,16 +1147,6 @@ int aa_change_hat(const char *hats[], int count, u64 token, int flags)
>  	label = aa_get_newest_cred_label(cred);
>  	previous = aa_get_newest_label(ctx->previous);
>  
> -	/*
> -	 * Detect no new privs being set, and store the label it
> -	 * occurred under. Ideally this would happen when nnp
> -	 * is set but there isn't a good way to do that yet.
> -	 *
> -	 * Testing for unconfined must be done before the subset test
> -	 */
> -	if (task_no_new_privs(current) && !unconfined(label) && !ctx->nnp)
> -		ctx->nnp = aa_get_label(label);
> -
>  	if (unconfined(label)) {
>  		info = "unconfined can not change_hat";
>  		error = -EPERM;
> @@ -1193,7 +1172,7 @@ int aa_change_hat(const char *hats[], int count, u64 token, int flags)
>  		 * reduce restrictions.
>  		 */
>  		if (task_no_new_privs(current) && !unconfined(label) &&
> -		    !aa_label_is_unconfined_subset(new, ctx->nnp)) {
> +		    !aa_label_is_unconfined_subset(new, label)) {
>  			/* not an apparmor denial per se, so don't log it */
>  			AA_DEBUG("no_new_privs - change_hat denied");
>  			error = -EPERM;
> @@ -1214,7 +1193,7 @@ int aa_change_hat(const char *hats[], int count, u64 token, int flags)
>  		 * reduce restrictions.
>  		 */
>  		if (task_no_new_privs(current) && !unconfined(label) &&
> -		    !aa_label_is_unconfined_subset(previous, ctx->nnp)) {
> +		    !aa_label_is_unconfined_subset(previous, label)) {
>  			/* not an apparmor denial per se, so don't log it */
>  			AA_DEBUG("no_new_privs - change_hat denied");
>  			error = -EPERM;
> @@ -1303,16 +1282,6 @@ int aa_change_profile(const char *fqname, int flags)
>  
>  	label = aa_get_current_label();
>  
> -	/*
> -	 * Detect no new privs being set, and store the label it
> -	 * occurred under. Ideally this would happen when nnp
> -	 * is set but there isn't a good way to do that yet.
> -	 *
> -	 * Testing for unconfined must be done before the subset test
> -	 */
> -	if (task_no_new_privs(current) && !unconfined(label) && !ctx->nnp)
> -		ctx->nnp = aa_get_label(label);
> -
>  	if (!fqname || !*fqname) {
>  		aa_put_label(label);
>  		AA_DEBUG("no profile name");
> @@ -1409,7 +1378,7 @@ int aa_change_profile(const char *fqname, int flags)
>  		 * reduce restrictions.
>  		 */
>  		if (task_no_new_privs(current) && !unconfined(label) &&
> -		    !aa_label_is_unconfined_subset(new, ctx->nnp)) {
> +		    !aa_label_is_unconfined_subset(new, label)) {
>  			/* not an apparmor denial per se, so don't log it */
>  			AA_DEBUG("no_new_privs - change_hat denied");
>  			error = -EPERM;
> diff --git a/security/apparmor/include/task.h b/security/apparmor/include/task.h
> index f13d12373b25..8a9c258e2018 100644
> --- a/security/apparmor/include/task.h
> +++ b/security/apparmor/include/task.h
> @@ -17,13 +17,11 @@ static inline struct aa_task_ctx *task_ctx(struct task_struct *task)
>  
>  /*
>   * struct aa_task_ctx - information for current task label change
> - * @nnp: snapshot of label at time of no_new_privs
>   * @onexec: profile to transition to on next exec  (MAY BE NULL)
>   * @previous: profile the task may return to     (MAY BE NULL)
>   * @token: magic value the task must know for returning to @previous_profile
>   */
>  struct aa_task_ctx {
> -	struct aa_label *nnp;
>  	struct aa_label *onexec;
>  	struct aa_label *previous;
>  	u64 token;
> @@ -42,7 +40,6 @@ struct aa_label *aa_get_task_label(struct task_struct *task);
>  static inline void aa_free_task_ctx(struct aa_task_ctx *ctx)
>  {
>  	if (ctx) {
> -		aa_put_label(ctx->nnp);
>  		aa_put_label(ctx->previous);
>  		aa_put_label(ctx->onexec);
>  	}
> @@ -57,7 +54,6 @@ static inline void aa_dup_task_ctx(struct aa_task_ctx *new,
>  				   const struct aa_task_ctx *old)
>  {
>  	*new = *old;
> -	aa_get_label(new->nnp);
>  	aa_get_label(new->previous);
>  	aa_get_label(new->onexec);
>  }
> diff --git a/security/apparmor/task.c b/security/apparmor/task.c
> index d17130ee6795..4b9ec370a171 100644
> --- a/security/apparmor/task.c
> +++ b/security/apparmor/task.c
> @@ -41,7 +41,6 @@ struct aa_label *aa_get_task_label(struct task_struct *task)
>  int aa_replace_current_label(struct aa_label *label)
>  {
>  	struct aa_label *old = aa_current_raw_label();
> -	struct aa_task_ctx *ctx = task_ctx(current);
>  	struct cred *new;
>  
>  	AA_BUG(!label);
> @@ -56,12 +55,6 @@ int aa_replace_current_label(struct aa_label *label)
>  	if (!new)
>  		return -ENOMEM;
>  
> -	if (ctx->nnp && label_is_stale(ctx->nnp)) {
> -		struct aa_label *tmp = ctx->nnp;
> -
> -		ctx->nnp = aa_get_newest_label(tmp);
> -		aa_put_label(tmp);
> -	}
>  	if (unconfined(label) || (labels_ns(old) != labels_ns(label)))
>  		/*
>  		 * if switching to unconfined or a different label namespace
>