Re: [PATCH v1 0/2] Add LSM access controls for io_uring_setup
From: Stephen Smalley <stephen.smalley.work@gmail.com>
Date: 2023-08-10 12:28:11
Also in:
io-uring, lkml, selinux
From: Stephen Smalley <stephen.smalley.work@gmail.com>
Date: 2023-08-10 12:28:11
Also in:
io-uring, lkml, selinux
On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 5:08 AM Dmytro Maluka [off-list ref] wrote:
On 8/9/23 19:28, Dmytro Maluka wrote:quoted
So one of the questions I'm wondering about is: if Android implemented preventing execution of any io_uring code by non-trusted processes (via seccomp or any other way), how much would it help to reduce the risk of attacks, compared to its current SELinux based solution?And why exactly I'm wondering about that: AFAICT, Android folks are concerned about the high likelihood of vulnerabilities in io_uring code just like we (ChromeOS folks) are, and that is the main reason why Android takes care of restricting io_uring usage in the first place.
I think if you audit the io_uring syscalls and find a code path that is not already mediated by a LSM hook (potentially at an earlier point during setup / fd creation) that accesses any shared resource or performs a privileged action, we would be open to adding a LSM hook to cover that code path. But you'd have to do the work to identify and propose such cases.