diff options
author | Venkat Yekkirala <vyekkirala@trustedcs.com> | 2006-11-08 18:04:26 -0500 |
---|---|---|
committer | David S. Miller <davem@sunset.davemloft.net> | 2006-12-03 00:21:34 -0500 |
commit | 67f83cbf081a70426ff667e8d14f94e13ed3bdca (patch) | |
tree | 776a40733eacb9071478f865e6791daa3f6fd602 /security/selinux/xfrm.c | |
parent | 6b877699c6f1efede4545bcecc367786a472eedb (diff) |
SELinux: Fix SA selection semantics
Fix the selection of an SA for an outgoing packet to be at the same
context as the originating socket/flow. This eliminates the SELinux
policy's ability to use/sendto SAs with contexts other than the socket's.
With this patch applied, the SELinux policy will require one or more of the
following for a socket to be able to communicate with/without SAs:
1. To enable a socket to communicate without using labeled-IPSec SAs:
allow socket_t unlabeled_t:association { sendto recvfrom }
2. To enable a socket to communicate with labeled-IPSec SAs:
allow socket_t self:association { sendto };
allow socket_t peer_sa_t:association { recvfrom };
Signed-off-by: Venkat Yekkirala <vyekkirala@TrustedCS.com>
Signed-off-by: James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'security/selinux/xfrm.c')
-rw-r--r-- | security/selinux/xfrm.c | 101 |
1 files changed, 49 insertions, 52 deletions
diff --git a/security/selinux/xfrm.c b/security/selinux/xfrm.c index 8fef74271f22..9b777140068f 100644 --- a/security/selinux/xfrm.c +++ b/security/selinux/xfrm.c | |||
@@ -115,71 +115,40 @@ int selinux_xfrm_state_pol_flow_match(struct xfrm_state *x, struct xfrm_policy * | |||
115 | struct flowi *fl) | 115 | struct flowi *fl) |
116 | { | 116 | { |
117 | u32 state_sid; | 117 | u32 state_sid; |
118 | u32 pol_sid; | 118 | int rc; |
119 | int err; | ||
120 | 119 | ||
121 | if (xp->security) { | 120 | if (!xp->security) |
122 | if (!x->security) | ||
123 | /* unlabeled SA and labeled policy can't match */ | ||
124 | return 0; | ||
125 | else | ||
126 | state_sid = x->security->ctx_sid; | ||
127 | pol_sid = xp->security->ctx_sid; | ||
128 | } else | ||
129 | if (x->security) | 121 | if (x->security) |
130 | /* unlabeled policy and labeled SA can't match */ | 122 | /* unlabeled policy and labeled SA can't match */ |
131 | return 0; | 123 | return 0; |
132 | else | 124 | else |
133 | /* unlabeled policy and unlabeled SA match all flows */ | 125 | /* unlabeled policy and unlabeled SA match all flows */ |
134 | return 1; | 126 | return 1; |
135 | |||
136 | err = avc_has_perm(state_sid, pol_sid, SECCLASS_ASSOCIATION, | ||
137 | ASSOCIATION__POLMATCH, | ||
138 | NULL); | ||
139 | |||
140 | if (err) | ||
141 | return 0; | ||
142 | |||
143 | err = avc_has_perm(fl->secid, state_sid, SECCLASS_ASSOCIATION, | ||
144 | ASSOCIATION__SENDTO, | ||
145 | NULL)? 0:1; | ||
146 | |||
147 | return err; | ||
148 | } | ||
149 | |||
150 | /* | ||
151 | * LSM hook implementation that authorizes that a particular outgoing flow | ||
152 | * can use a given security association. | ||
153 | */ | ||
154 | |||
155 | int selinux_xfrm_flow_state_match(struct flowi *fl, struct xfrm_state *xfrm, | ||
156 | struct xfrm_policy *xp) | ||
157 | { | ||
158 | int rc = 0; | ||
159 | u32 sel_sid = SECINITSID_UNLABELED; | ||
160 | struct xfrm_sec_ctx *ctx; | ||
161 | |||
162 | if (!xp->security) | ||
163 | if (!xfrm->security) | ||
164 | return 1; | ||
165 | else | ||
166 | return 0; | ||
167 | else | 127 | else |
168 | if (!xfrm->security) | 128 | if (!x->security) |
129 | /* unlabeled SA and labeled policy can't match */ | ||
169 | return 0; | 130 | return 0; |
131 | else | ||
132 | if (!selinux_authorizable_xfrm(x)) | ||
133 | /* Not a SELinux-labeled SA */ | ||
134 | return 0; | ||
170 | 135 | ||
171 | /* Context sid is either set to label or ANY_ASSOC */ | 136 | state_sid = x->security->ctx_sid; |
172 | if ((ctx = xfrm->security)) { | ||
173 | if (!selinux_authorizable_ctx(ctx)) | ||
174 | return 0; | ||
175 | 137 | ||
176 | sel_sid = ctx->ctx_sid; | 138 | if (fl->secid != state_sid) |
177 | } | 139 | return 0; |
178 | 140 | ||
179 | rc = avc_has_perm(fl->secid, sel_sid, SECCLASS_ASSOCIATION, | 141 | rc = avc_has_perm(fl->secid, state_sid, SECCLASS_ASSOCIATION, |
180 | ASSOCIATION__SENDTO, | 142 | ASSOCIATION__SENDTO, |
181 | NULL)? 0:1; | 143 | NULL)? 0:1; |
182 | 144 | ||
145 | /* | ||
146 | * We don't need a separate SA Vs. policy polmatch check | ||
147 | * since the SA is now of the same label as the flow and | ||
148 | * a flow Vs. policy polmatch check had already happened | ||
149 | * in selinux_xfrm_policy_lookup() above. | ||
150 | */ | ||
151 | |||
183 | return rc; | 152 | return rc; |
184 | } | 153 | } |
185 | 154 | ||
@@ -481,6 +450,13 @@ int selinux_xfrm_sock_rcv_skb(u32 isec_sid, struct sk_buff *skb, | |||
481 | } | 450 | } |
482 | } | 451 | } |
483 | 452 | ||
453 | /* | ||
454 | * This check even when there's no association involved is | ||
455 | * intended, according to Trent Jaeger, to make sure a | ||
456 | * process can't engage in non-ipsec communication unless | ||
457 | * explicitly allowed by policy. | ||
458 | */ | ||
459 | |||
484 | rc = avc_has_perm(isec_sid, sel_sid, SECCLASS_ASSOCIATION, | 460 | rc = avc_has_perm(isec_sid, sel_sid, SECCLASS_ASSOCIATION, |
485 | ASSOCIATION__RECVFROM, ad); | 461 | ASSOCIATION__RECVFROM, ad); |
486 | 462 | ||
@@ -492,10 +468,10 @@ int selinux_xfrm_sock_rcv_skb(u32 isec_sid, struct sk_buff *skb, | |||
492 | * If we have no security association, then we need to determine | 468 | * If we have no security association, then we need to determine |
493 | * whether the socket is allowed to send to an unlabelled destination. | 469 | * whether the socket is allowed to send to an unlabelled destination. |
494 | * If we do have a authorizable security association, then it has already been | 470 | * If we do have a authorizable security association, then it has already been |
495 | * checked in xfrm_policy_lookup hook. | 471 | * checked in the selinux_xfrm_state_pol_flow_match hook above. |
496 | */ | 472 | */ |
497 | int selinux_xfrm_postroute_last(u32 isec_sid, struct sk_buff *skb, | 473 | int selinux_xfrm_postroute_last(u32 isec_sid, struct sk_buff *skb, |
498 | struct avc_audit_data *ad) | 474 | struct avc_audit_data *ad, u8 proto) |
499 | { | 475 | { |
500 | struct dst_entry *dst; | 476 | struct dst_entry *dst; |
501 | int rc = 0; | 477 | int rc = 0; |
@@ -514,6 +490,27 @@ int selinux_xfrm_postroute_last(u32 isec_sid, struct sk_buff *skb, | |||
514 | } | 490 | } |
515 | } | 491 | } |
516 | 492 | ||
493 | switch (proto) { | ||
494 | case IPPROTO_AH: | ||
495 | case IPPROTO_ESP: | ||
496 | case IPPROTO_COMP: | ||
497 | /* | ||
498 | * We should have already seen this packet once before | ||
499 | * it underwent xfrm(s). No need to subject it to the | ||
500 | * unlabeled check. | ||
501 | */ | ||
502 | goto out; | ||
503 | default: | ||
504 | break; | ||
505 | } | ||
506 | |||
507 | /* | ||
508 | * This check even when there's no association involved is | ||
509 | * intended, according to Trent Jaeger, to make sure a | ||
510 | * process can't engage in non-ipsec communication unless | ||
511 | * explicitly allowed by policy. | ||
512 | */ | ||
513 | |||
517 | rc = avc_has_perm(isec_sid, SECINITSID_UNLABELED, SECCLASS_ASSOCIATION, | 514 | rc = avc_has_perm(isec_sid, SECINITSID_UNLABELED, SECCLASS_ASSOCIATION, |
518 | ASSOCIATION__SENDTO, ad); | 515 | ASSOCIATION__SENDTO, ad); |
519 | out: | 516 | out: |