linux-audit.redhat.com archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
To: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>,
	Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
	John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com>
Cc: selinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-audit@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] lsm: separate security_task_getsecid() into subjective and objective variants
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2021 11:49:34 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <dcc3df948dc18cc91888f4d5b6bd18e6aafc8007.camel@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <161377734508.87807.8537642254664217815.stgit@sifl>

On Fri, 2021-02-19 at 18:29 -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
> Of the three LSMs that implement the security_task_getsecid() LSM
> hook, all three LSMs provide the task's objective security
> credentials.  This turns out to be unfortunate as most of the hook's
> callers seem to expect the task's subjective credentials, although
> a small handful of callers do correctly expect the objective
> credentials.
> 
> This patch is the first step towards fixing the problem: it splits
> the existing security_task_getsecid() hook into two variants, one
> for the subjective creds, one for the objective creds.
> 
>   void security_task_getsecid_subj(struct task_struct *p,
> 				   u32 *secid);
>   void security_task_getsecid_obj(struct task_struct *p,
> 				  u32 *secid);
> 
> While this patch does fix all of the callers to use the correct
> variant, in order to keep this patch focused on the callers and to
> ease review, the LSMs continue to use the same implementation for
> both hooks.  The net effect is that this patch should not change
> the behavior of the kernel in any way, it will be up to the latter
> LSM specific patches in this series to change the hook
> implementations and return the correct credentials.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>

Thanks, Paul.

Acked-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>  (IMA)

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


  parent reply	other threads:[~2021-02-24 16:56 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 [this message]
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
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=dcc3df948dc18cc91888f4d5b6bd18e6aafc8007.camel@linux.ibm.com \
    --to=zohar@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=casey@schaufler-ca.com \
    --cc=john.johansen@canonical.com \
    --cc=linux-audit@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=paul@paul-moore.com \
    --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).