On 10/11/2021 2:33 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 8:46 PM Todd Kjos <tkjos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Use the 'struct cred' saved at binder_open() to lookup
>> the security ID via security_cred_getsecid(). This
>> ensures that the security context that opened binder
>> is the one used to generate the secctx.
>>
>> Fixes: ec74136ded79 ("binder: create node flag to request sender's
>> security context")
>> Signed-off-by: Todd Kjos <tkjos@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Suggested-by: Stephen Smalley <stephen.smalley.work@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx # 5.4+
>> ---
>> v3: added this patch to series
>> v4: fix build-break for !CONFIG_SECURITY
>>
>> drivers/android/binder.c | 11 +----------
>> include/linux/security.h | 4 ++++
>> 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/android/binder.c b/drivers/android/binder.c
>> index ca599ebdea4a..989afd0804ca 100644
>> --- a/drivers/android/binder.c
>> +++ b/drivers/android/binder.c
>> @@ -2722,16 +2722,7 @@ static void binder_transaction(struct binder_proc *proc,
>> u32 secid;
>> size_t added_size;
>>
>> - /*
>> - * Arguably this should be the task's subjective LSM secid but
>> - * we can't reliably access the subjective creds of a task
>> - * other than our own so we must use the objective creds, which
>> - * are safe to access. The downside is that if a task is
>> - * temporarily overriding it's creds it will not be reflected
>> - * here; however, it isn't clear that binder would handle that
>> - * case well anyway.
>> - */
>> - security_task_getsecid_obj(proc->tsk, &secid);
>> + security_cred_getsecid(proc->cred, &secid);
>> ret = security_secid_to_secctx(secid, &secctx, &secctx_sz);
>> if (ret) {
>> return_error = BR_FAILED_REPLY;
>> diff --git a/include/linux/security.h b/include/linux/security.h
>> index 6344d3362df7..f02cc0211b10 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/security.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/security.h
>> @@ -1041,6 +1041,10 @@ static inline void security_transfer_creds(struct cred *new,
>> {
>> }
>>
>> +static inline void security_cred_getsecid(const struct cred *c, u32 *secid)
>> +{
>> +}
> Since security_cred_getsecid() doesn't return an error code we should
> probably set the secid to 0 in this case, for example:
>
> static inline void security_cred_getsecid(...)
> {
> *secid = 0;
> }
If CONFIG_SECURITY is unset there shouldn't be any case where
the secid value is ever used for anything. Are you suggesting that
it be set out of an abundance of caution?
