On wto, 2015-05-26 at 12:34 -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote: > > On wto, 2015-05-26 at 10:35 -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote: > >> On 05/25/2015 08:32 AM, Lukasz Pawelczyk wrote: > > > > I call the inode operation by hand in the post_setxattr. > > > > The label will effectively be set twice, which is not ideal, but there > > is no other option right now without reworking the hooks as you said. > > > > This shouldn't really be a problem because the Smack operations will not > > use the filesystem label (even when it's set incorrectly for a moment) > > but an already initialized smack_known structure for this inode that has > > all the values filled in properly. > > > > The only attack vector I can think of is hard rebooting the machine in a > > way that mapped label is really saved in the filesystem before the > > unmapped will have a chance. Should I be worried about that? This sounds > > a little unreal. > > If it were my security module, I would be worried about it. Even aside > from maliciously induced failure, you are leaving yourself open to > inconsistencies arising upon crashes. I would suggest modifying the > setxattr hook so that the security module can override the original > value/size pair with its own definition before it is passed to the inode > operation. There is already precedent in that security modules are > allowed to override the value/size returned by getxattr for security.*, > so this just makes them fully parallel. Will do. Thank you. -- Lukasz Pawelczyk Samsung R&D Institute Poland Samsung Electronics _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
