Linux-audit Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
To: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
	Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.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: Tue, 23 Feb 2021 09:14:45 -0500
Message-ID: <e03dedaf6f3fc439d1d2240e6c6d5e66301441fd.camel@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1ab6d635-53af-6dd9-fc29-482723c80c6a@schaufler-ca.com>

On Mon, 2021-02-22 at 15:58 -0800, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> On 2/20/2021 6:41 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> I'm still not seeing anything that looks wrong. I'd suggest that Mimi
> have a look at the IMA bits.

Thanks, Casey, Paul.  The IMA changes look fine.  IMA policy rules are
normally written in terms of a file's LSM labels, the obj_type, so
hopefully this change has minimal, if any, impact.

Mimi

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


  reply index

Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-02-19 23:28 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
2021-02-22 23:58     ` Casey Schaufler
2021-02-23 14:14       ` Mimi Zohar [this message]
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=e03dedaf6f3fc439d1d2240e6c6d5e66301441fd.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

Linux-audit Archive on lore.kernel.org

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/linux-audit/0 linux-audit/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 linux-audit linux-audit/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-audit \
		linux-audit@redhat.com
	public-inbox-index linux-audit

Example config snippet for mirrors

Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/com.redhat.linux-audit


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git