On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 04:28:53PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > Thanks Al. > > Giving this a very quick look, I like the code simplifications that > come out of this change and I'll trust you on the idea that this > approach is better from a VFS perspective. > > While the reject_all() permission hammer is good, I do want to make > sure we are covered from a file labeling perspective; even though the > DAC/reject_all() check hits first and avoids the LSM inode permission > hook, we still want to make sure the files are labeled properly. It > looks like given the current SELinux Reference Policy this shouldn't > be a problem, it will be labeled like most everything else in > selinuxfs via genfscon (SELinux policy construct). I expect those > with custom SELinux policies will have something similar in place with > a sane default that would cover the /sys/fs/selinux/.swapover > directory but I did add the selinux-refpol list to the CC line just in > case I'm being dumb and forgetting something important with respect to > policy. > > The next step is to actually boot up a kernel with this patch and make > sure it doesn't break anything. Simply booting up a SELinux system > and running 'load_policy' a handful of times should exercise the > policy (re)load path, and if you want a (relatively) simple SELinux > test suite you can find one here: > > * https://github.com/SELinuxProject/selinux-testsuite > > The README.md should have the instructions necessary to get it > running. If you can't do that, and no one else on the mailing list is > able to test this out, I'll give it a go but expect it to take a while > as I'm currently swamped with reviews and other stuff. It does survive repeated load_policy (as well as semodule -d/semodule -e, with expected effect on /booleans, AFAICS). As for the testsuite... No regressions compared to clean -rc5, but then there are (identical) failures on both - "Failed 8/76 test programs. 88/1046 subtests failed." Incomplete defconfig, at a guess...
