On 3/9/21 4:28 PM, Paul Moore wrote: > On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 7:44 PM Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> 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? > > Hi John, > > Any objections if I merge the LSM, SELinux, and Smack patches into the > selinux/next tree so that we can start getting some wider testing? If > I leave out my poor attempt at an AppArmor patch, the current in-tree > AppArmor code should behave exactly as it does today with the > apparmor_task_getsecid() function handling both the subjective and > objective creds. I can always merge the AppArmor patch later when you > have it ready, or you can merge it via your AppArmor tree at a later > date. > I have some questions around selinux and binder but I don't have any objections to you merging, we can always drop fixes on top if they are necessary
