On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 10:46:47PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote: > On 10/13/2015 10:04 AM, Seth Forshee wrote: > > The SMACK64, SMACK64EXEC, and SMACK64MMAP labels are all handled > > differently in untrusted mounts. This is confusing and > > potentically problematic. Change this to handle them all the same > > way that SMACK64 is currently handled; that is, read the label > > from disk and check it at use time. For SMACK64 and SMACK64MMAP > > access is denied if the label does not match smk_root. To be > > consistent with suid, a SMACK64EXEC label which does not match > > smk_root will still allow execution of the file but will not run > > with the label supplied in the xattr. > > > > Signed-off-by: Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Aside from the one comment below (which I can be talked out of) > this looks fine. > > > --- > > security/smack/smack_lsm.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++---------- > > 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/security/smack/smack_lsm.c b/security/smack/smack_lsm.c > > index 621200f86b56..bee0b2652bf4 100644 > > --- a/security/smack/smack_lsm.c > > +++ b/security/smack/smack_lsm.c > > @@ -891,6 +891,7 @@ static int smack_bprm_set_creds(struct linux_binprm *bprm) > > struct inode *inode = file_inode(bprm->file); > > struct task_smack *bsp = bprm->cred->security; > > struct inode_smack *isp; > > + struct superblock_smack *sbsp; > > int rc; > > > > if (bprm->cred_prepared) > > @@ -900,6 +901,10 @@ static int smack_bprm_set_creds(struct linux_binprm *bprm) > > if (isp->smk_task == NULL || isp->smk_task == bsp->smk_task) > > return 0; > > > > + sbsp = inode->i_sb->s_security; > > + if (sbsp->smk_flags & SMK_SB_UNTRUSTED && isp->smk_task != sbsp->smk_root) > > Call me old fashioned, but how about > > if ((sbsp->smk_flags & SMK_SB_UNTRUSTED) && isp->smk_task != sbsp->smk_root) > > naked '&'s give me the willies. That's fine by me. Seth -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
