On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Stephen Smalley <sds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 08/12/2014 03:08 PM, Paul Moore wrote: >> On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 11:56:42 AM Andy Lutomirski wrote: >>> On Aug 12, 2014 11:07 AM, "Stephen Smalley" <sds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> On 08/12/2014 02:01 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Stephen Smalley wrote: >>>>>> If the callee SID is bounded by the caller SID, then allowing >>>>>> the transition to occur poses no risk of privilege escalation and we >>>>>> can therefore safely allow the transition to occur. Add this exemption >>>>>> for both the case where a transition was explicitly requested by the >>>>>> application and the case where an automatic transition is defined in >>>>>> policy. >>>>> >>>>> This still wants something like security_bounded_transition_noaudit, >>>>> right? (Or just a parameter about whether to audit -- there will only >>>>> be two callers, I think.) >>>> >>>> I think generating an audit record is correct in this case; the >>>> operation would have succeeded if the type were bounded, so it is >>>> correct and helpful to report this to the audit log for diagnosing >>>> failures. I think Paul's prior objection was that you could end up with >>>> an audit record even when the operation succeeded when we allowed the >>>> transitions on either a bounded transition or dyntransition permission, >>>> but that is no longer the case. >>> >>> Fair enough. >> >> Yes, the audit problem is no longer an issue and the comments look good to me. >> >>> Does this have any chance of making 3.17? >> >> No. That ship has sailed. >> >> However, I would still like to see some more Reviewed-by/Tested-by mails >> before we merge this for 3.18. Andy, based on discussion on this thread and >> previous threads, I assume you're happy with this patch? > > Attached is the patch for the selinux-testsuite, > against git://git.selinuxproject.org/~serge/selinux-testsuite. > Once it goes into a kernel I can make the test kernel version-specific > and thus ensure it passes on old and new kernels. > The test case looks good to me. Arguably it could check the error code, too, but that's minor. --Andy _______________________________________________ Selinux mailing list Selinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe, send email to Selinux-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxx. To get help, send an email containing "help" to Selinux-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
