From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: "Christian Göttsche" <cgzones@googlemail.com>
Cc: selinux@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] [RFC PATCH] sched: only perform capability check on privileged operation
Date: Wed, 4 May 2022 16:23:19 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220504142319.GB2501@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220502152414.110922-1-cgzones@googlemail.com>
On Mon, May 02, 2022 at 05:24:14PM +0200, Christian Göttsche wrote:
> sched_setattr(2) issues via kernel/sched/core.c:__sched_setscheduler()
> a CAP_SYS_NICE audit event unconditionally, even when the requested
> operation does not require that capability / is unprivileged, i.e. for
> reducing niceness.
> This is relevant in connection with SELinux, where a capability check
> results in a policy decision and by default a denial message on
> insufficient permission is issued.
> It can lead to three undesired cases:
> 1. A denial message is generated, even in case the operation was an
> unprivileged one and thus the syscall succeeded, creating noise.
> 2. To avoid the noise from 1. the policy writer adds a rule to ignore
> those denial messages, hiding future syscalls, where the task
> performs an actual privileged operation, leading to hidden limited
> functionality of that task.
> 3. To avoid the noise from 1. the policy writer adds a rule to allow
> the task the capability CAP_SYS_NICE, while it does not need it,
> violating the principle of least privilege.
>
> Conduct privilged/unprivileged categorization first and perform a
> capable test (and at most once) only if needed.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christian Göttsche <cgzones@googlemail.com>
Does something like so on top work?
---
kernel/sched/core.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++------------------------
1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index ba5a9a1ce1e5..d3b5a2757c5f 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -6931,17 +6931,27 @@ void set_user_nice(struct task_struct *p, long nice)
EXPORT_SYMBOL(set_user_nice);
/*
- * can_nice - check if a task can reduce its nice value
+ * is_nice_reduction - check if nice value is an actual reduction
+ *
* @p: task
* @nice: nice value
*/
-int can_nice(const struct task_struct *p, const int nice)
+static bool is_nice_reduction(const struct task_struct *p, const int nice)
{
/* Convert nice value [19,-20] to rlimit style value [1,40]: */
int nice_rlim = nice_to_rlimit(nice);
- return (nice_rlim <= task_rlimit(p, RLIMIT_NICE) ||
- capable(CAP_SYS_NICE));
+ return (nice_rlim <= task_rlimit(p, RLIMIT_NICE));
+}
+
+/*
+ * can_nice - check if a task can reduce its nice value
+ * @p: task
+ * @nice: nice value
+ */
+int can_nice(const struct task_struct *p, const int nice)
+{
+ return is_nice_reduction(p, nice) || capable(CAP_SYS_NICE);
}
#ifdef __ARCH_WANT_SYS_NICE
@@ -7220,22 +7230,6 @@ static bool check_same_owner(struct task_struct *p)
return match;
}
-/*
- * is_nice_reduction - check if nice value is an actual reduction
- *
- * Similar to can_nice() but does not perform a capability check.
- *
- * @p: task
- * @nice: nice value
- */
-static bool is_nice_reduction(const struct task_struct *p, const int nice)
-{
- /* Convert nice value [19,-20] to rlimit style value [1,40]: */
- int nice_rlim = nice_to_rlimit(nice);
-
- return (nice_rlim <= task_rlimit(p, RLIMIT_NICE));
-}
-
/*
* Allow unprivileged RT tasks to decrease priority.
* Only issue a capable test if needed and only once to avoid an audit
@@ -7247,13 +7241,12 @@ static int user_check_sched_setscheduler(struct task_struct *p,
{
if (fair_policy(policy)) {
if (attr->sched_nice < task_nice(p) &&
- !is_nice_reduction(p, attr->sched_nice))
+ !is_nice_reduction(p, attr->sched_nice))
goto req_priv;
}
if (rt_policy(policy)) {
- unsigned long rlim_rtprio =
- task_rlimit(p, RLIMIT_RTPRIO);
+ unsigned long rlim_rtprio = task_rlimit(p, RLIMIT_RTPRIO);
/* Can't set/change the rt policy: */
if (policy != p->policy && !rlim_rtprio)
@@ -7261,7 +7254,7 @@ static int user_check_sched_setscheduler(struct task_struct *p,
/* Can't increase priority: */
if (attr->sched_priority > p->rt_priority &&
- attr->sched_priority > rlim_rtprio)
+ attr->sched_priority > rlim_rtprio)
goto req_priv;
}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-05-04 14:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-09-04 16:00 [RFC PATCH] sched: only issue an audit " Christian Göttsche
2020-09-08 10:25 ` peterz
2020-09-08 11:28 ` Ondrej Mosnacek
2022-05-02 15:24 ` [PATCH v2] [RFC PATCH] sched: only perform capability check " Christian Göttsche
2022-05-04 14:23 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2022-06-15 15:25 ` [PATCH v3] " Christian Göttsche
2022-06-28 7:16 ` [tip: sched/core] " tip-bot2 for Christian Göttsche
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20220504142319.GB2501@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=cgzones@googlemail.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=selinux@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®