Re: [PATCH 02/12] selinux: Create policydb version for Infiniband support

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 6/30/2016 3:17 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Dan Jurgens <danielj@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> From: Daniel Jurgens <danielj@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Support for Infiniband requires the addition of two new object contexts,
>> one for infiniband PKeys and another IB End Ports.  Added handlers to read
>> and write the new ocontext types when reading or writing a binary policy
>> representation.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Jurgens <danielj@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Reviewed-by: Eli Cohen <eli@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>  security/selinux/include/security.h |   3 +-
>>  security/selinux/ss/policydb.c      | 129 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>>  security/selinux/ss/policydb.h      |  27 +++++---
>>  3 files changed, 135 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
> ...
>
>> diff --git a/security/selinux/ss/policydb.c b/security/selinux/ss/policydb.c
>> index 992a315..78b819c 100644
>> --- a/security/selinux/ss/policydb.c
>> +++ b/security/selinux/ss/policydb.c
>> @@ -2219,6 +2229,58 @@ static int ocontext_read(struct policydb *p, struct policydb_compat_info *info,
>>                                         goto out;
>>                                 break;
>>                         }
>> +                       case OCON_PKEY: {
>> +                               rc = next_entry(nodebuf, fp, sizeof(u32) * 6);
>> +                               if (rc)
>> +                                       goto out;
>> +
>> +                               c->u.pkey.subnet_prefix = be64_to_cpu(*((__be64 *)nodebuf));
>> +                               /* The subnet prefix is stored as an IPv6
>> +                                * address in the policy.
>> +                                *
>> +                                * Check that the lower 2 DWORDS are 0.
>> +                                */
> Any particular reason why you reusing an IPv6 address format here?
> Why not use a u64 for the prefix and u16/u32 fields for the partition
> keys?
The subnet prefix is the high order bytes of an IPv6 address and there is infrastructure in place in the userland utilities that deal with IPv6 addresses (parsing them with a :: to eliminate the need to fill out the 0's for example).

Regarding u16, the policy is packed with everything in u32, as you can see in OCON_NODE6 and OCON_PORT handling.
>> +                               if (nodebuf[2] || nodebuf[3]) {
>> +                                       rc = -EINVAL;
>> +                                       goto out;
>> +                               }
>> +
>> +                               if (nodebuf[4] > 0xffff ||
>> +                                   nodebuf[5] > 0xffff) {
>> +                                       rc = -EINVAL;
>> +                                       goto out;
>> +                               }
>> +
>> +                               c->u.pkey.low_pkey = le32_to_cpu(nodebuf[4]);
>> +                               c->u.pkey.high_pkey = le32_to_cpu(nodebuf[5]);
>> +
>> +                               rc = context_read_and_validate(&c->context[0],
>> +                                                              p,
>> +                                                              fp);
>> +                               if (rc)
>> +                                       goto out;
>> +                               break;
>> +                       }
>> +                       case OCON_IB_END_PORT:
> This is a little bit of bikeshedding, but is there such thing as an IB
> "port" that isn't an *end* "port"?  Could we simply use OCON_IB_PORT?
Jason Gunthorpe requested that the name be end_port  in the RFC series.
>> +                               rc = next_entry(buf, fp, sizeof(u32) * 2);
>> +                               if (rc)
>> +                                       goto out;
>> +                               len = le32_to_cpu(buf[0]);
>> +
>> +                               rc = str_read(&c->u.ib_end_port.dev_name, GFP_KERNEL,
>> +                                             fp,
>> +                                             len);
>> +                               if (rc)
>> +                                       goto out;
>> +
>> +                               c->u.ib_end_port.port = le32_to_cpu(buf[1]);
> No range checking on the port value like you do on the partition keys above?

I can add a similar check.


_______________________________________________
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.



[Index of Archives]     [Selinux Refpolicy]     [Linux SGX]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Yosemite Photos]     [Yosemite Camping]     [Yosemite Campsites]     [KDE Users]     [Gnome Users]

  Powered by Linux