Google is committed to advancing racial equity for Black communities. See how.

FTP-028: Handle Rights

The Right Stuff

Field Value
Status Accepted
Authors kulakowski@google.com, bprosnitz@google.com
Submitted 2019-04-01
Reviewed 2019-12-12

Summary

Annotate required or excluded handle rights in FIDL, specifically:

  1. Have a mechanism to describe rights on all handle kinded types (e.g. Protocol, request<Protocol>, handle)

  2. On serialization, enforce rights filtering, i.e. the description of rights determines a mask, which indicates the set of rights which one must have.

  3. On deserialization, enforce rights validation and the set of rights provided.

Motivation

Handle rights are a tool for attenuating privilege within Fuchsia. Prior to this FTP, FIDL had no way to describe handle rights. Several places with important restrictions or requirements on handle rights currently relegate such a description to comments on methods.

Examples of desirable rights restrictions include read-only IPC or VMO handles, and non-executable VMO handles.

Examples of desirable right requirements include writable IPC handles.

Design

Rights Constraints

This proposal adds a new type of constraint to FIDL: a rights annotation. This can be applied to all handle types in FIDL data structures and method parameters: handles, protocols, and protocol requests.

Rights constraints MAY be specified on typed handle declarations: handle<*subtype*, *RC*>. They cannot be specified on plain handles because rights only have meaning within the context of a particular handle subtype. When rights constraints are not specified on handle declarations, rights will be forwarded with the same rights (no change to existing behavior).

Example:

handle<vmo, zx.rights.READ | zx.rights.WRITE> read and write are required, any other rights are removed when sending to clients

handle<vmo> no rights specified, forward existing rights

At least one right MUST be specified for each right constraint (e.g. handle<vmo, > is illegal).

Rights constraints cannot be specified for server and client protocol endpoints (myprotocol and request<myprotocol>). These will always have the rights zx.TRANSFER | zx.WAIT | zx.INSPECT | zx.WRITE | zx.READ | zx.SIGNAL | zx.SIGNAL_PEER and subtype set to channel. If custom rights are needed (for instance for an unmovable protocol), handle<*channel*, *RRC, ORC*> can be used. (This may be further refined with the use of templates, and will be discussed in future FTPs).

Rights constraints MUST follow a "default deny" policy. All rights must be explicitly listed.

Syntax

Handle rights constraints are bits-typed expressions that can be specified with the help of bitwise operators. In the examples above, | is the bitwise-OR operator. The syntax is meant to be general and apply to bits-typed values elsewhere in the FIDL language as well. In the zx library, there will be a bits definition zx.rights containing all of the rights.

While a rights specification repeating zx.rights.[*right*] is verbose, there are proposals to shorten it in future FTPs so it is considered out of scope of this FTP.

Bindings

Bindings MUST respond to reception and deserialization of a handle with incorrect required rights by destroying the message and closing the channel with epitaph ZX_ERR_ACCESS_DENIED.

Bindings MUST respond to serialization of a handle with incorrect required rights by failing to serialize, destroying the message, and disallowing sending. Bindings MUST close the channel as well with ZX_ERR_BAD_STATE.

Defaults

There will be no defaults for handle rights. The reasoning here is the following:

  • Defaults have unclear behavior that can be inconsistent across object types. It isn't transparent to the user what the default rights are for a given object.

  • Defaults discourage use of fine grained handle rights — it becomes easy to not consider rights when writing a FIDL definition.

  • If there were defaults, for many object types the most suitable candidates would be no rights or maximum rights. A maximum right default would limit the effectiveness of the changes in this FTP, but a no right default would have the same effect as not having defaults. Neither of which are very helpful.

Reuse of Handle Declarations

A consequence of not having defaults is that specifying rights can be verbose. In order to improve this, it will be possible to give a name to an entire handle declaration with the aliasing features (i.e. using keyword).

using readable_vmo = handle<vmo, zx.READ>

An alternative to this might be allowing aliases for rights constraints (e.g. an "io" alias for zx.READ | zx.WRITE), but this provides a layer of indirection that obscures the rights, especially if they are used broadly. By allowing aliasing at the object level, it limits usage to locations where the type is identical.

Parameterizability

We want to create generic messages containing channels whose rights constraints can be parametrized.

For instance, consider fuchsia.mem.Buffer which holds a handle<vmo>. It should be possible to say fuchsia.mem.Buffer:C with constraints C flowing to constraining the handle<vmo>.

Generalized type aliasing is a start here, and the introduction of templates will further satisfy this need. While this is out-of-scope for this proposal, this requirement must be considered for related work.

Implementation Strategy

Reception of messages should rely on the zx_channel_read_etc system call to provide rights information at the point-of-call. The rights information will be used by bindings to validate required rights are present and filter out any additional received rights beyond the required rights.

Sending of messages should rely on zx_channel_write_etc which will decrease sent rights to the set of specified rights and validate that all required rights are present, returning ACCESS_DENIED if validation fails. The bindings will be responsible for closing the channel after receiving this response. To match existing behavior, ZX_HANDLE_OP_MOVE will be used on this system call which is equivalent to calling zx_handle_replace and then zx_channel_write. When no rights are specified ZX_RIGHT_SAME_RIGHTS will be used in place of the rights.

An intent to implement doc describing the implementation in detail is in progress.

Ergonomics

In the long term this is an ergonomics improvement. Rights documentation and checking is done in a standard way across FIDL, rather than ad hoc comments and checks.

Documentation and Examples

This will require documentation changes to:

Backwards Compatibility

ABI Compatibility

Rights changes MUST NOT break ABI compatibility.

Source Compatibility

Rights changes MAY break source compatibility. Breaking source compatibility is unexpected, however and should be clearly documented if binding authors choose this path.

Adding Required Rights

It is backwards compatible on the message recipient side to have an additional required right, as it only gives more capability. However, on the message sender side, adding a required right is a backwards incompatible change as the right now needs to be present before sending.

Removing Required Rights

It is backwards compatible on the sender side to remove required rights, but backwards incompatible on the recipient side. The recipient will now not be receiving a right that it expects.

Adding Optional Rights

It is backwards compatible to add optional rights.

Removing Optional Rights

It is backwards compatible on the sender side to remove optional rights, but backwards incompatible on the recipient side. The recipient will now not be receiving a right that it previously may have received.

Ambient assumptions

There are likely to be ambient assumptions that the deployment of this model will break. For example, clients may be assuming that all VMOs received over a connection are mappable, even though servers do not intend to provide this guarantee.

One can see this state as the entire motivation for this FTP: to remove this pervasive and implicit contracts.

Performance

Microbenchmarks show that zx_channel_write_etc and zx_channel_read_etc have very similar performance. For a 64 byte message with 1 handle, a zx_channel_write/zx_channel_read take 962ns while zx_channel_write_etc/zx_channel_read_etc take 1000ns.

The handles array needed when reading or writing handles will increase from 256 bytes (ZX_CHANNEL_MAX_MSG_HANDLES * sizeof(zx_handle_t)) to 1024 bytes (ZX_CHANNEL_MAX_MSG_HANDLES * sizeof(zx_handle_info_t)). Similarly, the array that is stack allocated when writing handles will increase from 256 bytes to 1280 bytes (ZX_CHANNEL_MAX_MSG_HANDLES * sizeof(zx_handle_disposition)).

In order to keep stack allocation to a max of 256 bytes, we will need to heap allocate handle tables if they are too big (> 16 handles for read or > 12 handles for write). As part of this change, we will look at the combined stack allocation requirements of both message size and handle tables (we only consider message size today).

Security

This is a security improvement. It enables more accurate auditing of our API surfaces. It moves permissions checks into the bindings, which can be better reviewed than the same checks across all call sites.

For instance, once rights are fully used, it will be easy to audit all places transferring ownership of executable VMOs. This would prove difficult today.

Testing

Each bindings implementation should be unit tested.

The roll out of this feature should also ensure that implementations of FIDL protocols that are modified to use this feature test the new functionality.

Drawbacks, Alternatives, and Unknowns

Drawback: Public APIs Will Be Verbose

In a certain sense this feature is "noisy". In typical execution of the system, the missing-rights paths may never be taken. And yet they still take up real estate in the public system API.

We believe that the cost here is worth the clarity and precision, and that good use of aliases will cover most needs.

Consider for instance two classes of problems which can be avoided or reduced:

  1. Breakage at a distance due to incompatible rights: A failure may occur very far from the source (possibly even way downstream in some other process if the handle was transferred again).

  2. Undocumented assumptions cause compatibility issues: Some clients/servers may pass handles with more rights than strictly needed leading to their peers assuming they can rely on those rights being present leading to compatibility issues should these assumptions prove faulty.

We realize that spelling out rights is annoying but equate it to type information for the capability.

Alternative: Lower and Upper Bounds for Rights

Initial design called for lower and upper bounds on rights (e.g. "without executable right", or “with writable right”). From a security standpoint, the line of thinking is that Fuchsia should adopt a “default deny” policy for all capabilities (and rights).

So if a capability (or right) isn’t explicitly mentioned anywhere then it shouldn’t be granted. Component manifests already behave this way for sandboxing and ideally so should FIDL APIs.

We may want to additionally allow expressing explicitly "optional rights", i.e. rights which may or may not be provided.

Hence, from a constraint syntax standpoint, i.e. what people type when writing FIDL APIs, we are gearing towards listing rights, and marking some as optional.

Note that from a constraint semantics standpoint, i.e. what would need to be expressed in the JSON IR and implemented by bindings, this syntactic change continues to express lower & upper bounds checks.

Mandatory Source Compatibility

In Fuchsia, rights are generally represented as a uint32 and the value of a right can change at any time. Because of this, it might seem reasonable to expect changes in rights values in FIDL to not substantively cause changes in the generated source code. However, there may be some use cases for breaking source compatibility - such as generating specific methods (such as write()) if a given right is present (in this case zx.rights.WRITE). Because of this, we aren’t prescribing that rights changes can’t break source compatibility.