Re: [PATCH] lsm: security_task_getsecid_subj() -> security_current_getsecid_subj()

[Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>]

On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 7:42 PM Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/19/2021 2:52 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 3:17 PM Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> wrote:
> >> The security_task_getsecid_subj() LSM hook invites misuse by allowing
> >> callers to specify a task even though the hook is only safe when the
> >> current task is referenced.  Fix this by removing the task_struct
> >> argument to the hook, requiring LSM implementations to use the
> >> current task.  While we are changing the hook declaration we also
> >> rename the function to security_current_getsecid_subj() in an effort
> >> to reinforce that the hook captures the subjective credentials of the
> >> current task and not an arbitrary task on the system.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
> >> ---
> >>   include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h         |    3 +--
> >>   include/linux/lsm_hooks.h             |    8 +++-----
> >>   include/linux/security.h              |    4 ++--
> >>   kernel/audit.c                        |    4 ++--
> >>   kernel/auditfilter.c                  |    3 +--
> >>   kernel/auditsc.c                      |   10 +++++++++-
> >>   net/netlabel/netlabel_unlabeled.c     |    2 +-
> >>   net/netlabel/netlabel_user.h          |    2 +-
> >>   security/apparmor/lsm.c               |   13 ++++++++++---
> >>   security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c |    2 +-
> >>   security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c     |   14 +++++++-------
> >>   security/security.c                   |    6 +++---
> >>   security/selinux/hooks.c              |   19 +++----------------
> >>   security/smack/smack.h                |   16 ----------------
> >>   security/smack/smack_lsm.c            |    9 ++++-----
> >>   15 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 67 deletions(-)
> > I never saw any comments, positive or negative, on this patch so I'll
> > plan on merging it early next week.  If you've got objections, now is
> > the time to speak up.
>
> It's OK by me.
>
> Reviewed-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>

Thanks Casey.  Are you okay with the AppArmor tweak mentioned by Serge and John?

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com