(2010/02/17 22:51), Stephen Smalley wrote: > On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 08:49 +0900, KaiGai Kohei wrote: >>> I'd say we revert the changeset and restore the prior behavior. >>> I don't think we should impose the latter convention on policy writers. >> >> OK, fair enough for me. >> >> This patch revert the commit of 7d52a155e38d5a165759dbbee656455861bf7801 >> which removed a part of type_attribute_bounds_av as a dead code. >> However, at that time, we didn't find out the target side boundary allows >> to handle some of pseudo /proc/<pid>/* entries with its process's security >> context well. > > Does Jacques' original concern about the code still hold true? > http://marc.info/?l=selinux&m=125770868309928&w=2 > http://marc.info/?l=selinux&m=125851264424682&w=2 This patch just tries to revert the changes by previous my patch, and returns to the start point, so it also reverts the Jacques' original concern. At that time, IIRC, Jacques concerned about the logic being unclear. Then, I introduced two options. The one is rough; that removes boundary checks in the target side. The other option tried to mask union bits of both of violated permissions on subject and target side boundaries (*1). (*1) type_attribute_bounds_av(Sc,Tc, ...) { masked = 0; if (Sc has its bounds) masked |= P(Sc,Tc) & ~P(Sp,Tc); if (Tc has its bounds) masked |= P(Sc,Tc) & ~P(Sc,Tp); avd->allowed &= ~masked; } However, the later option also requires policy writers special treatments to handle pseudo file entries labeled with parent's domain. For example, when web server (httpd_t) launches a thread and assign an individual bounded security context (webapp_t), we don't need to take a special treatment to access pseudo files labeled as webapp_t in the original logic. If we adopt the logic introduced at (*1), when we write webapp_t's policy, we have to allow webapp_t domain to access files labeled as httpd_t, not only webapp_t, because permissions between webapp_t and webapp_t will be eventually masked by one's between httpd_t domain and webapp_t type or webapp_t domain and httpd_t type. However, it also seems to me it is right manner to allow them explicitly in the security policy, although I sent a patch to revert the changes. In the original logic, when httpd_t domain is allowed to access httpd_t type, webapp_t domain is also allowed to access webapp_t type, although httpd_t domain is not allowed to access webapp_t type. It seems to me it is a case when child domain has permissions which are not allowed to the parent domain. I reconsidered that it is a case when we should write security policy explicitly. What do you think about it? Thanks, >> >> Signed-off-by: KaiGai Kohei<kaigai@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> -- >> security/selinux/ss/services.c | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- >> 1 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/security/selinux/ss/services.c b/security/selinux/ss/services.c >> index 4e976f5..42d423c 100644 >> --- a/security/selinux/ss/services.c >> +++ b/security/selinux/ss/services.c >> @@ -524,14 +524,16 @@ static void type_attribute_bounds_av(struct context *scontext, >> u16 tclass, >> struct av_decision *avd) >> { >> + struct context lo_scontext; >> + struct context lo_tcontext; >> + struct av_decision lo_avd; >> struct type_datum *source >> = policydb.type_val_to_struct[scontext->type - 1]; >> + struct type_datum *target >> + = policydb.type_val_to_struct[tcontext->type - 1]; >> + u32 masked = 0; >> >> if (source->bounds) { >> - struct context lo_scontext; >> - struct av_decision lo_avd; >> - u32 masked; >> - >> memset(&lo_avd, 0, sizeof(lo_avd)); >> >> memcpy(&lo_scontext, scontext, sizeof(lo_scontext)); >> @@ -544,7 +546,40 @@ static void type_attribute_bounds_av(struct context *scontext, >> if ((lo_avd.allowed& avd->allowed) == avd->allowed) >> return; /* no masked permission */ >> masked = ~lo_avd.allowed& avd->allowed; >> + } >> + >> + if (target->bounds) { >> + memset(&lo_avd, 0, sizeof(lo_avd)); >> + >> + memcpy(&lo_tcontext, tcontext, sizeof(lo_tcontext)); >> + lo_tcontext.type = target->bounds; >> + >> + context_struct_compute_av(scontext, >> + &lo_tcontext, >> + tclass, >> + &lo_avd); >> + if ((lo_avd.allowed& avd->allowed) == avd->allowed) >> + return; /* no masked permission */ >> + masked = ~lo_avd.allowed& avd->allowed; >> + } >> + >> + if (source->bounds&& target->bounds) { >> + memset(&lo_avd, 0, sizeof(lo_avd)); >> + /* >> + * lo_scontext and lo_tcontext are already >> + * set up. >> + */ >> + >> + context_struct_compute_av(&lo_scontext, >> + &lo_tcontext, >> + tclass, >> + &lo_avd); >> + if ((lo_avd.allowed& avd->allowed) == avd->allowed) >> + return; /* no masked permission */ >> + masked = ~lo_avd.allowed& avd->allowed; >> + } >> >> + if (masked) { >> /* mask violated permissions */ >> avd->allowed&= ~masked; >> -- OSS Platform Development Division, NEC KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list. If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.
