On Sun, Feb 21, 2021 at 7:51 AM John Johansen <john.johansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 2/19/21 3:29 PM, Paul Moore wrote: > > Of the three LSMs that implement the security_task_getsecid() LSM > > hook, all three LSMs provide the task's objective security > > credentials. This turns out to be unfortunate as most of the hook's > > callers seem to expect the task's subjective credentials, although > > a small handful of callers do correctly expect the objective > > credentials. > > > > This patch is the first step towards fixing the problem: it splits > > the existing security_task_getsecid() hook into two variants, one > > for the subjective creds, one for the objective creds. > > > > void security_task_getsecid_subj(struct task_struct *p, > > u32 *secid); > > void security_task_getsecid_obj(struct task_struct *p, > > u32 *secid); > > > > While this patch does fix all of the callers to use the correct > > variant, in order to keep this patch focused on the callers and to > > ease review, the LSMs continue to use the same implementation for > > both hooks. The net effect is that this patch should not change > > the behavior of the kernel in any way, it will be up to the latter > > LSM specific patches in this series to change the hook > > implementations and return the correct credentials. > > > > Signed-off-by: Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > So far this looks good. I want to take another stab at it and give > it some testing Checking in as I know you said you needed to fix/release the AppArmor patch in this series ... is this patch still looking okay to you? If so, can I get an ACK at least on this patch? -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com
