On 7/28/20 4:41 PM, Casey Schaufler wrote: > On 7/28/2020 4:11 AM, John Johansen wrote: >> On 7/24/20 1:32 PM, Casey Schaufler wrote: >>> Change security_secctx_to_secid() to fill in a lsmblob instead >>> of a u32 secid. Multiple LSMs may be able to interpret the >>> string, and this allows for setting whichever secid is >>> appropriate. Change security_secmark_relabel_packet() to use a >>> lsmblob instead of a u32 secid. In some other cases there is >>> scaffolding where interfaces have yet to be converted. >>> >>> Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Signed-off-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Cc: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> one comment below, but its a nice to have so >> >> Reviewed-by: John Johansen <john.johansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> >>> --- >>> include/linux/security.h | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++++---- >>> include/net/scm.h | 7 +++++-- >>> kernel/cred.c | 4 +--- >>> net/ipv4/ip_sockglue.c | 6 ++++-- >>> net/netfilter/nft_meta.c | 18 +++++++++------- >>> net/netfilter/xt_SECMARK.c | 9 ++++++-- >>> net/netlabel/netlabel_unlabeled.c | 23 +++++++++++++-------- >>> security/security.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- >>> 8 files changed, 98 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/include/linux/security.h b/include/linux/security.h >>> index d81e8886d799..98176faaaba5 100644 >>> --- a/include/linux/security.h >>> +++ b/include/linux/security.h >>> @@ -189,6 +189,27 @@ static inline bool lsmblob_equal(struct lsmblob *bloba, struct lsmblob *blobb) >>> return !memcmp(bloba, blobb, sizeof(*bloba)); >>> } >>> >>> +/** >>> + * lsmblob_value - find the first non-zero value in an lsmblob structure. >>> + * @blob: Pointer to the data >>> + * >>> + * This needs to be used with extreme caution, as the cases where >>> + * it is appropriate are rare. >>> + * >>> + * Return the first secid value set in the lsmblob. >>> + * There should only be one. >> It would be really nice if we could have an LSM debug config, that would >> do things like checking there is indeed only one value when this fn >> is called. > > I can't see a CONFIG_LSM_DEBUG for this alone, but if you have > other places you'd like to see it I'm open to it. > yeah there are a few other places, this really isn't a requirement just a thought while I was going through these again. I will have to spend some time chasing them down. Maybe even cobble together a patch
