On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 8:03 PM, Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 6:25 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> The SELinux bprm_secureexec hook can be merged with the bprm_set_creds >>> hook since it's dealing with the same information, and all of the details >>> are finalized during the first call to the bprm_set_creds hook via >>> prepare_binprm() (subsequent calls due to binfmt_script, etc, are ignored >>> via bprm->called_set_creds). >>> >>> Here, the test can just happen at the end of the bprm_set_creds hook, >>> and the bprm_secureexec hook can be dropped. >>> >>> Cc: Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Cc: Stephen Smalley <sds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> security/selinux/hooks.c | 24 +++++------------------- >>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-) >> >> This seems reasonable in the context of the other changes. >> >> Stephen just posted an AT_SECURE test for the selinux-testsuite on the >> SELinux mailing list, it would be nice to ensure that this patchset >> doesn't run afoul of that. > > Quick follow-up: I just merged Stephen's test into the test suite: > > * https://github.com/SELinuxProject/selinux-testsuite Is there a quick how-to on just running the AT_SECURE test? -Kees -- Kees Cook Pixel Security
