danwalsh

I get lots of bugs from people complaining about SELinux blocking access to the Docker socket.  For example https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557893

The aggravating thing is, this is exactly what we want SELinux to prevent.  If a container process got to the point of talking to the /var/run/docker.sock, you know this is a serious security issue.  Giving a container access to the Docker socket, means you are giving it full root on  your system.  

A couple of years ago, I wrote why giving docker.sock to non privileged users is a bad idea.

Now I am getting bug reports about allowing containers access to this socket.

Access to the docker.sock is the equivalent of sudo with NOPASSWD, without any logging. You are giving the process that talks to the socket, the ability to launch a process on the system as full root.

Usually people are doing this because they want the container to do benign operations, like list which containers are on the system, or look a the container logs.  But Docker does not have a nice RBAC system, you basically get full access or no access.  I choose to default to NO ACCESS.

If you need to give container full access to the system then run it as a --privileged container or disable SELinux separation for the container.

podman run --privileged ...
or
docker run --privileged ...

podman run --security-opt label:disable ...
or
docker run --security-opt label:disable ...

Run it privileged

I have been working on SELinux for over 15 years.  I switched my primary job to working on containers several years ago, but one of the first things I did with containers was to add SELinux support.  Now all of the container projects I work on including CRI-O, Podman, Buildah as well as Docker, Moby, Rocket, runc, systemd-nspawn, lxc ... all have SELinux support.  I also maintain the container-selinux policy package which all of these container runtimes rely on.

Any ways container runtimes started adding the no-new-privileges capabilities a couple of years ago. 

no_new_privs 

The no_new_privs kernel feature works as follows:

• Processes set no_new_privs bit in kernel that persists across fork, clone, & exec.
• no_new_privs bit ensures process/children processes do not gain any additional privileges.
• Process aren't allowed to unset no_new_privs bit once set.
• no_new_privs processes are not allowed to change uid/gid or gain any other capabilities, even if the process executes setuid binaries or executables with file capability bits set.
• no_new_privs prevents Linux Security Modules (LSMs) like SELinux from transitioning to process labels that have access not allowed to the current process. This means an SELinux process is only allowed to transition to a process type with less privileges.

Oops that last flag is a problem for containers and SELinux.  If I am running a command like

# podman run -ti --security-opt no-new-privileges fedora sh

I have just updated the container-selinux policy to support MLS (Multi Level Security).  

SELinux and Container technology have a long history together.  Some people imagine that containers started just a few years ago with the introduction of Docker, but the technology goes back a lot further then that. 

SELinux originally supported two type of Mandatory Access Control,  Type Enforcement and RBAC (Roles Based Access Control).  

Type Enforcement

Type Enforcement is SELinux main security measure.  Basically every process on the system gets a assigned a type (httpd_t, unconfined_t, container_t ...)  And every object (file, directory, socket, tcp port ...) gets assigned a type. (httpd_sys_content_t, user_home_t, httpd_port_t, container_file_t).  Then we write rules that define the access between process types and object types. Note: The type field is always the third field of the SELinus label.

allow container_t container_file_t:file { open read write }

Anything that is not allowed is denied.

RBAC (Roles Based Access Control)

Yesterday I received an email from someone who was attempting to write SELinux policy for a daemon process, "abcd", that he was being required to run on his systems.

"

...

 Here's the problem:  the ****** agent runs as root and has the ability to
make changes to system configuration files.  So deploying this agent
means handing over root-level control of all of my RHEL servers to
people I don't know and who have no accountability to my system owner or
authorizing official.  ..... really, really
uncomfortable about this and want to protect our system from
unauthorized changes inflicted by some panicking yabbo ....

This seems like a job for SELinux.  Our RHEL7 baseline has SELinux
enforcing (AWESOME) already, so I figured we just need to write a custom policy
that defines a type for the ******* agent process (abcd_t) and confines
that so that it can only access the agent's own data directories.

We did that, and it's not working out.  Once we start the confined
agent, it spews such a massive volume of AVC denials that it threatens
to fill the log volume and the agent never actually starts.  There are
way too many errors for the usual 'read log/allow exception' workflow to
be viable.  My guess is the agent is trying to read a bunch of sensitive
system files and choking because SELinux won't let it.

Have you got any advice or ideas here?

...

Here is my response:

The kernel has a feature where it will load certain kernel modules for a process, when certain syscalls are made.  For example, loading a kernel module when a process attempts to create a different network socket.  

I wrote a blog on https://medium.com/cri-o explaining how this is probably a bad idea from a containers perspective.  I don't want to allow container processes to trigger modifications of the kernel.  And potentially causing the kernel to load risky modules that could have vulnerabilities in them.  I say, let the Administrator or packagers decide what kernel modules need to be loaded and then make the containers live with what is provided for them.  Here is a link to the blog.

https://medium.com/cri-o/cri-o-has-builtin-selinux-support-6ff45b707cf0

If you followed SELinux policy bugs being reported in bugzilla you might have noticed a spike in messages about random domains being denied DAC_READ_SEARCH.

Let's quickly look at what the DAC_READ_SEARCH capability is.  In Linux the power of "root" was broken down into 64 distinct capabilities.  Things like being able to load kernel modules or bind to ports less then 1024.  Well DAC_READ_SEARCH is one of these.

DAC stands for Discretionary Access Control, which is what most people understand as standard Linux permissions, Every process has owner/group.  All file system objects are  assigned owner, group and permission flags.  DAC_READ_SEARCH allows a privilege process to ignore parts of DAC for read and search.

man capabilities

...

       CAP_DAC_READ_SEARCH

              * Bypass file read permission checks and directory read and execute permission checks;

There is another CAPABILITY called DAC_OVERRIDE

       CAP_DAC_OVERRIDE

              Bypass file read, write, and execute permission checks.

As you can see DAC_OVERRIDE is more powerful then DAC_READ_SEARCH, in that it can write and execute content ignoring DAC rules, as opposed to just reading the content.

Well why did we suddenly see a spike in confined domains needing DAC_READ_SEARCH?