On Mon, 2011-01-31 at 05:26 +0200, Lucian Adrian Grijincu wrote: > Eric's patch was rejected because it broke selinux labeling: > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.lsm/9807/focus=9841 > > This seems to break labeling. Prior to this patch, I see: > > # ls -lZ /proc/1/net/rpc/nfsd.fh > -rw-------. root root system_u:object_r:sysctl_rpc_t:s0 channel > > with the patch: > > # ls -lZ /proc/1/net/rpc/nfsd.fh > -rw-------. root root system_u:object_r:proc_t:s0 channel > > My patch seems to have fixed this problem (it correctly reports > sysctl_rpc_t in this case), but my selinux experience is Î > 0 and I > have no ideea what else it may have broken. > > I ran 'find /proc | xargs ls -Z > f' on a kernel with an without > these patches: > * http://swarm.cs.pub.ro/~lucian/store/ls-Z-with-patch > * http://swarm.cs.pub.ro/~lucian/store/ls-Z-without-patch > > My setup is a custom busybox live CD with selinux enabled, with > /etc/selinux and /usr/share/selinux/default copied from Ubuntu 10.10's > selinux-policy-default package. I'm sure there are lots of reasons why > this is not correcly configured, etc., but I have no experience > regarding selinux. I can make all the scripts/sources/configs/etc > available to anyone interested. > > NOTE: this patch will be merged with: > security/selinux: Simplify proc inode to security label mapping > > I'm only prividing this patch separately to point out the differences > to Eric W. Biederman's patch. > > Both of these patches apply cleanly agains Linux 2.6.37. > > Signed-off-by: Lucian Adrian Grijincu <lucian.grijincu@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > fs/proc/proc_sysctl.c | 1 - > security/selinux/hooks.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++---- > 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) It would be better to include the patch inline for review. In any event, a few observations on your patch: - We don't want to replace "incestuous" knowledge of proc with "incestous" knowledge of the dcache. So rather than encoding knowledge of the magical "//deleted" suffix into selinux, use an interface to the dcache (or add one if none exists) that does not append that suffix at all. I think apparmor did something similar to deal with the (deleted) suffix for d_path. - You don't need special handling of /proc/PID entries. Those are labeled via the security_task_to_inode -> selinux_task_to_inode hook, called from proc_pid_make_inode and the _revalidate functions. - Don't remove the IS_PRIVATE() test from inode_has_perm(), as other inodes beyond just the /proc/sys ones are marked with that flag (original usage was for reiserfs xattr inodes). -- Stephen Smalley National Security Agency -- 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.
