linux-audit.redhat.com archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
To: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
Cc: selinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
	John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com>,
	linux-audit@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] Split security_task_getsecid() into subj and obj variants
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2021 09:41:44 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhQBbep2WkD6JkCemtcXFLq7j5=AQeM9vVJ4_gmvi7hPQA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9ea5259b-fd84-e176-c042-c52a1c4fcc27@schaufler-ca.com>

On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 8:49 PM Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote:
> On 2/19/2021 3:28 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> > As discussed briefly on the list (lore link below), we are a little
> > sloppy when it comes to using task credentials, mixing both the
> > subjective and object credentials.  This patch set attempts to fix
> > this by replacing security_task_getsecid() with two new hooks that
> > return either the subjective (_subj) or objective (_obj) credentials.
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-security-module/806848326.0ifERbkFSE@x2/T/
> >
> > Casey and John, I made a quick pass through the Smack and AppArmor
> > code in an effort to try and do the right thing, but I will admit
> > that I haven't tested those changes, just the SELinux code.  I
> > would really appreciate your help in reviewing those changes.  If
> > you find it easier, feel free to wholesale replace my Smack/AppArmor
> > patch with one of your own.
>
> A quick test pass didn't show up anything obviously
> amiss with the Smack changes. I have will do some more
> through inspection, but they look fine so far.

Thanks for testing it out and giving it a look.  Beyond the Smack
specific changes, I'm also interested in making sure all the hook
callers are correct; I believe I made the correct substitutions, but a
second (or third (or fourth ...)) set of eyes is never a bad idea.

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com

--
Linux-audit mailing list
Linux-audit@redhat.com
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit


  reply	other threads:[~2021-02-20 14:42 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-02-19 23:28 [RFC PATCH 0/4] Split security_task_getsecid() into subj and obj variants Paul Moore
2021-02-19 23:29 ` [RFC PATCH 1/4] lsm: separate security_task_getsecid() into subjective and objective variants Paul Moore
2021-02-20  2:55   ` James Morris
2021-02-20 14:44     ` Paul Moore
2021-03-04 10:04       ` Jeffrey Vander Stoep
2021-03-04 23:43         ` Paul Moore
2021-03-10  8:21           ` Jeffrey Vander Stoep
2021-03-11  1:56             ` Paul Moore
2021-02-21 12:51   ` John Johansen
2021-02-21 22:09     ` Paul Moore
2021-03-04  0:44     ` Paul Moore
2021-03-10  0:28       ` Paul Moore
2021-03-10  3:09         ` John Johansen
2021-02-24 16:49   ` Mimi Zohar
2021-03-08 19:25   ` Richard Guy Briggs
2021-03-10  0:23     ` Paul Moore
2021-03-10  1:03   ` John Johansen
2021-03-11  1:55     ` Paul Moore
2021-02-19 23:29 ` [RFC PATCH 2/4] selinux: clarify task subjective and objective credentials Paul Moore
2021-02-21 12:55   ` John Johansen
2021-03-08 19:26   ` Richard Guy Briggs
2021-03-10  3:05   ` John Johansen
2021-03-11  4:32     ` Paul Moore
2021-03-17 22:56       ` Paul Moore
2021-02-19 23:29 ` [RFC PATCH 3/4] smack: differentiate between subjective and objective task credentials Paul Moore
2021-02-21 12:56   ` John Johansen
2021-03-08 19:26   ` Richard Guy Briggs
2021-03-10  1:04   ` John Johansen
2021-02-19 23:29 ` [RFC PATCH 4/4] apparmor: " Paul Moore
2021-02-21 12:57   ` John Johansen
2021-02-21 22:12     ` Paul Moore
2021-02-20  1:49 ` [RFC PATCH 0/4] Split security_task_getsecid() into subj and obj variants Casey Schaufler
2021-02-20 14:41   ` Paul Moore [this message]
2021-02-22 23:58     ` Casey Schaufler
2021-02-23 14:14       ` Mimi Zohar
2021-02-24  0:03         ` Paul Moore
2021-03-04  0:46       ` Paul Moore
2021-03-04  2:21         ` Casey Schaufler
2021-03-04 23:41           ` Paul Moore

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='CAHC9VhQBbep2WkD6JkCemtcXFLq7j5=AQeM9vVJ4_gmvi7hPQA@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=paul@paul-moore.com \
    --cc=casey@schaufler-ca.com \
    --cc=john.johansen@canonical.com \
    --cc=linux-audit@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=selinux@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).