On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 7:54 AM, Casey Schaufler <casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 1/2/2018 5:20 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: >> Right now most of the IMA code is using current->creds, but the LSM >> checks are using security_task_getsecid() which ends up looking at >> real_creds. Switch to using security_cred_getsecid() in order to make >> this consistent. > security_filter_rule_match() is security_audit_rule_match() in > sheep's clothing. Using the cred secid in this case, where the > task secid is used elsewhere is going to lead to tears. It's > going to make *me* cry as I work on untangling secids for > stacking/namespaces. I can't predict how else it's going to > bite us, but I'm betting on it. The problem here is that we don't *have* the task secid for one of the cases I care about. Validating the task secid at execution time gives us the security context of the spawning process, rather than the spawned one - by the time it's committed to the task structure, it's too late to block execution, so all we have is the secid associated with the creds in the bprm structure. Obviously fixing this in a way that doesn't break your work is important, so any suggestions on how I should be fixing this? :)
