On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 7:40 AM Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 10:38 PM Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 1:14 PM Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > This series aims to correct a design flaw in the original anon_inode > > > SELinux support that would make it hard to write policies for anonymous > > > inodes once more types of them are supported (currently only userfaultfd > > > inodes are). A more detailed rationale is provided in the second patch. > > > > > > The first patch extends the anon_inode_getfd_secure() function to accept > > > an additional numeric identifier that represents the type of the > > > anonymous inode being created, which is passed to the LSMs via > > > security_inode_init_security_anon(). > > > > > > The second patch then introduces a new SELinux policy capability that > > > allow policies to opt-in to have a separate class used for each type of > > > anon inode. That means that the "old way" will still > > > > ... will what? :) > > Whoops, I thought I had gone over all the text enough times, but > apparently not :) It should have said something along the lines of: > > ...will still work and will be used by default. That's what I figured from my quick glance at the code, but I wanted to make sure. > > I think it would be a very good idea if you could provide some > > concrete examples of actual policy problems encountered using the > > current approach. I haven't looked at these patches very seriously > > yet, but my initial reaction is not "oh yes, we definitely need this". > > An example is provided in patch 2. It is a generalized problem that we > would eventually run into in Fedora policy (at least) with the > unconfined_domain_type attribute and so far only hypothetical future > types of anon inodes. Yes, I read the example you provided in patch 2, but it was still a little too abstract for my liking. I have the same concern that Stephen mentioned, I was just giving you an opportunity to show that in this case the additional object classes were warranted. -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com
