Re: [PATCH][SMACK] add a socket_post_accept hook to fix netlabelissues with labeled TCP servers V1

[etienne]

Paul Moore wrote:
> On Tuesday 24 February 2009 05:20:42 pm etienne wrote:
>> Paul Moore wrote:
>>> On Tuesday 24 February 2009 04:28:24 pm etienne wrote:
>>>>  /**
>>>> + * smack_socket_post_access - post access check
>>>> + * @sock: the socket
>>>> + * @newsock : the grafted sock
>>>> + *
>>>> + * we have to match client IP against smack_host_label()
>>>> + */
>>>> +static void  smack_socket_post_accept(struct socket *sock, struct
>>>> socket *newsock) +{
>>>> +	char *hostsp;
>>>> +	struct sockaddr_storage address;
>>>> +	struct sockaddr_in *sin;
>>>> +	struct sockaddr_in6 *sin6;
>>>> +	struct in6_addr *addr6;
>>>> +	struct socket_smack *ssp = newsock->sk->sk_security;
>>>> +	int len;
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (sock->sk == NULL)
>>>> +		return;
>>>> +
>>>> +	/* sockets can listen on both IPv4 & IPv6,
>>>> +	   and fallback to V4 if client is V4 */
>>>> +	if  (newsock->sk->sk_family != AF_INET && newsock->sk->sk_family !=
>>>> AF_INET6) +		return;
>>>> +
>>>> +	/* get the client IP address **/
>>>> +	newsock->ops->getname(newsock, (struct sockaddr *)&address, &len, 2);
>>>> +
>>>> +	switch (newsock->sk->sk_family) {
>>>> +	case AF_INET:
>>>> +		sin = (struct sockaddr_in *)&address;
>>>> +		break;
>>>> +	case AF_INET6:
>>>> +		sin6  = (struct sockaddr_in6 *)&address;
>>>> +		addr6 = &sin6->sin6_addr;
>>>> +		/* if a V4 client connects to a V6 listening server,
>>>> +		 * we will get a IPV6_ADDR_MAPPED mapped address here
>>>> +		 * we have to handle this case too
>>>> +		 * the test below is ipv6_addr_type()== IPV6_ADDR_MAPPED
>>>> +		 * without the requirement to have IPv6 compiled in
>>>> +		 */
>>>> +		if ((addr6->s6_addr32[0] | addr6->s6_addr32[1]) == 0 &&
>>>> +				addr6->s6_addr32[2] == htonl(0x0000ffff)) {
>>>> +			__be32 addr = sin6->sin6_addr.s6_addr32[3];
>>>> +			__be16 port = sin6->sin6_port;
>>>> +			sin = (struct sockaddr_in *)&address;
>>>> +			sin->sin_family = AF_INET;
>>>> +			sin->sin_port = port;
>>>> +			sin->sin_addr.s_addr = addr;
>>>> +		} else {
>>>> +			/* standard IPv6, we'll send unlabeled */
>>>> +			smack_netlabel(newsock->sk, SMACK_UNLABELED_SOCKET);
>>>> +			return;
>>>> +		}
>>>> +		break;
>>>> +	default:
>>>> +		/** not possible to be there **/
>>>> +		return;
>>>> +	}
>>>> +	/* so, is there a label for the source IP **/
>>>> +	hostsp = smack_host_label(sin);
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (hostsp == NULL) {
>>>> +		if (ssp->smk_labeled != SMACK_CIPSO_SOCKET)
>>>> +			smack_netlabel(newsock->sk, SMACK_CIPSO_SOCKET);
>>>> +		return;
>>>> +	}
>>>> +	if (ssp->smk_labeled != SMACK_UNLABELED_SOCKET)
>>>> +		smack_netlabel(newsock->sk, SMACK_UNLABELED_SOCKET);
>>>> +	return;
>>>> +}
>>> NAK, you can't ignore return values like that.
>>>
>>> I'm sorry I didn't get a chance to respond to your email from this
>>> morning, but the problem with the post_accept() hook is that you can't
>>> fail in this hook.  There has been a _lot_ of discussion about this over
>>> the past couple of years on the LSM list.  You should check the archives
>>> for all the details but the main problem is that the post_accept() hook
>>> is too late to deny the incoming connection so you can't reject the
>>> connection at that point in any sane manner.
>> well, i don't want to reject the connection here :)
>>
>>> I think I'm going to draft a patch to remove the post_accept()
>>> hook since no one in-tree is using it and it's existence seems to cause
>>> more problems than it solves.
>>>
>>> Now, I understand that your patch doesn't actually enforce any access
>>> controls but it does call smack_netlabel() in several places and that
>>> function can fail
>> The smack_netlabel(newsock->sk, SMACK_CIPSO_SOCKET) can failed, but has no
>> interest in this function (because the socket has already be
>> SMACK_CIPSO_SOCKET labeled by the policy) I can remove it.
>>
>> but smack_netlabel(SMACK_UNLABELED_SOCKET) cannot fail, and that's what i'm
>>  interested in could this make the patch acceptable?
> 
> Please elaborate a bit more on how you would intend a user to configure and 
> make use of this.  Also, in what cases would you remove the NetLabel from a 
> socket?  What cases would you keep it?
> 
well, i think it is simple : let's say i want to run a "smack-labelled server" (apache, vsftpd, ...) 
clients connect from internet,  so the server admin/user  will want to add a "0.0.0.0/0 @" entry in netlabel
that will _fail_ because the server will send back "labeled" packets.

In this configuration, client IP matching the netlabel should receive packets unlabeled from server;
it's the case for UDP today, not for TCP. I don't find it intuitive or coherent, but maybe i'm missing something

client IPs that don't match the netlabel list should stay _labeled_, the postaccept wont remove it.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/