[Devel] Re: [patch 1/2] [RFC] Simple tamper-proof device filesystem.

[Serge E. Hallyn]

Quoting Tetsuo Handa (penguin-kernel at I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp):
> A brief description about SYAORAN:
> 
>  SYAORAN stands for "Simple Yet All-important Object Realizing Abiding
>  Nexus". SYAORAN is a filesystem for /dev with Mandatory Access Control.
> 
>  /dev needs to be writable, but this means that files on /dev might be
>  tampered with. SYAORAN can restrict combinations of (pathname, attribute)
>  that the system can create. The attribute is one of directory, regular
>  file, FIFO, UNIX domain socket, symbolic link, character or block device
>  file with major/minor device numbers.
> 
>  SYAORAN can ensure /dev/null is a character device file with major=1 minor=3.
> 
>  Policy specifications for this filesystem is at
>  http://tomoyo.sourceforge.jp/en/1.5.x/policy-syaoran.html
> 
> Why not use FUSE?
> 
>  Because /dev has to be available through the lifetime of the kernel.
>  It is not acceptable if /dev stops working due to SIGKILL or OOM-killer.
> 
> Why not use SELinux?
> 
>  Because SELinux doesn't guarantee filename and its attribute.
>  The purpose of this filesystem is to ensure filename and its attribute
>  (e.g. /dev/null is guaranteed to be a character device file
>  with major=1 and minor=3).

We need something similar for system containers (like vservers).  We
will likely want root in a container to be confined to a certain set
of devices.

For starters we expect to use the capability bounding sets (see
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/11/26/206).  So a container will have a static
/dev predefined, and CAP_MKNOD will be removed from its capability
bounding set so that root in a container cannot create any more new
devices.

For future more sophisticated device controls, two similar approaches
have been suggested (one by me, see
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/containers/2007-September/007423.html
and
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/containers/2007-November/008589.html
).  Both actually control the devices a process can create period,
rather than trying to control at the filesystem.  And yes, these both
lack the feature in your solution that for instance 'c 1 3' must be
called null, which appears to be the kind of guarantee apparmor likes to
provide.

To use your approach, i guess we would have to use selinux (or tomoyo)
to enforce that devices may only be created under /dev?

-serge
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers at lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers