Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of selinux-refpolicy-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <4df50e95-6173-4ed1-9d08-3c1c4abab23f@gmail.com>
 <CAHC9VhSjTqT-4TMxBnQOQHkj+djONihfeoPVyy1egrZY2t10XA@mail.gmail.com>
 <c8a616e4-26a6-af51-212c-31dca0e265cd@gmail.com> <CAHC9VhQTZdeNOx3AXdoc9LXUzDk5n7wyGBX-tV-ZaovhPAdWwQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <e85dd38b-ef7b-ed7e-882e-124cdf942c44@gmail.com> <CAHC9VhROuJtvNHuVaR6pEekNFacH3Tywx58_hn1f5Mwk+kjC8g@mail.gmail.com>
 <b7e55304-d114-bcbe-08d2-b54828121a01@gmail.com> <CAHC9VhSdgD4Nfaxbnnn4r-OK8koSZ7+zQoPShDbGi9PvkJFpng@mail.gmail.com>
 <478e1651-a383-05ff-d011-6dda771b8ce8@linux.microsoft.com>
 <875ypt5zmz.fsf@defensec.nl> <CAFftDdo9JmbyPzPWRjOYgZBOS9b5d+OGKKf8egS8_ysbbWW87Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFftDdo9JmbyPzPWRjOYgZBOS9b5d+OGKKf8egS8_ysbbWW87Q@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Jeffrey Vander Stoep <jeffv@google.com>
Date:   Mon, 14 Feb 2022 08:11:28 +0100
Message-ID: <CABXk95Az0V0qWyB0Cp9D+MaCKNBfcdk4=bvXRdm5EXzHdjXJJg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] SELinux: Always allow FIOCLEX and FIONCLEX
To:     William Roberts <bill.c.roberts@gmail.com>
Cc:     Dominick Grift <dominick.grift@defensec.nl>,
        Chris PeBenito <chpebeni@linux.microsoft.com>,
        Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>,
        Demi Marie Obenour <demiobenour@gmail.com>,
        Stephen Smalley <stephen.smalley.work@gmail.com>,
        Eric Paris <eparis@parisplace.org>,
        SElinux list <selinux@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        selinux-refpolicy@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 3:18 PM William Roberts <bill.c.roberts@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> This is getting too long for me.
>
> > >
> > > I don't have a strong opinion either way.  If one were to allow this
> > > using a policy rule, it would result in a major policy breakage.  The
> > > rule would turn on extended perm checks across the entire system,
> > > which the SELinux Reference Policy isn't written for.  I can't speak
> > > to the Android policy, but I would imagine it would be the similar
> > > problem there too.
> >
> > Excuse me if I am wrong but AFAIK adding a xperm rule does not turn on
> > xperm checks across the entire system.
>
> It doesn't as you state below its target + class.
>
> >
> > If i am not mistaken it will turn on xperm checks only for the
> > operations that have the same source and target/target class.
>
> That's correct.
>
> >
> > This is also why i don't (with the exception TIOSCTI for termdev
> > chr_file) use xperms by default.
> >
> > 1. it is really easy to selectively filter ioctls by adding xperm rules
> > for end users (and since ioctls are often device/driver specific they
> > know best what is needed and what not)
>
> > >>> and FIONCLEX can be trivially bypassed unless fcntl(F_SETFD)
> >
> > 2. if you filter ioctls in upstream policy for example like i do with
> > TIOSCTI using for example (allowx foo bar (ioctl chr_file (not
> > (0xXXXX)))) then you cannot easily exclude additional ioctls later where source is
> > foo and target/tclass is bar/chr_file because there is already a rule in
> > place allowing the ioctl (and you cannot add rules)
>
> Currently, fcntl flag F_SETFD is never checked, it's silently allowed, but
> the equivalent FIONCLEX and FIOCLEX are checked. So if you wrote policy
> to block the FIO*CLEX flags, it would be bypassable through F_SETFD and
> FD_CLOEXEC. So the patch proposed makes the FIO flags behave like
> F_SETFD. Which means upstream policy users could drop this allow, which
> could then remove the target/class rule and allow all icotls. Which is easy
> to prevent and fix you could be a rule in to allowx 0 as documented in the
> wiki: https://selinuxproject.org/page/XpermRules
>
> The questions I think we have here are:
> 1. Do we agree that the behavior between SETFD and the FIO flags are equivalent?
>   I think they are.
> 2. Do we want the interfaces to behave the same?
>   I think they should.
> 3. Do upstream users of the policy construct care?
>   The patch is backwards compat, but I don't want their to be cruft
> floating around with extra allowxperm rules.


I think this proposed change is fine from Android's perspective. It
implements in the kernel what we've already already put in place in
our policy - that all domains are allowed to use these IOCLTs.
https://cs.android.com/android/platform/superproject/+/master:system/sepolicy/public/domain.te;l=312

It'll be a few years before we can clean up our policy since we need
to support older kernels, but that's fine.