On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 5:24 PM Todd Kjos <tkjos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 2:12 PM Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 8:46 PM Todd Kjos <tkjos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Set a transaction's sender_euid from the 'struct cred'
> > > saved at binder_open() instead of looking up the euid
> > > from the binder proc's 'struct task'. This ensures
> > > the euid is associated with the security context that
> > > of the task that opened binder.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 457b9a6f09f0 ("Staging: android: add binder driver")
> > > Signed-off-by: Todd Kjos <tkjos@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Suggested-by: Stephen Smalley <stephen.smalley.work@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx # 4.4+
> > > ---
> > > v3: added this patch to series
> > >
> > > drivers/android/binder.c | 2 +-
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > This is an interesting ordering of the patches. Unless I'm missing
> > something I would have expected patch 3/3 to come first, followed by
> > 2/3, with patch 1/3 at the end; basically the reverse of what was
> > posted here.
>
> 2/3 and 3/3 both depend on 1/3 (add "cred" member of struct
> binder_proc). I kept that in 1/3 to keep that patch the same as what
> had already been reviewed. I didn't think much about the ordering
> between 2/3 and 3/3 -- but I agree that it would have been sensible to
> reverse their order.
>
> >
> > My reading of the previous thread was that Casey has made his peace
> > with these changes so unless anyone has any objections I'll plan on
> > merging 2/3 and 3/3 into selinux/stable-5.15 and merging 1/3 into
> > selinux/next.
>
> Thanks Paul. I'm not familiar with the branch structure, but you need
> 1/3 in selinux/stable-5.15 to resolve the dependency on proc->cred.
Yep, thanks. My eyes kinda skipped over that part when looking at the
patchset but that would have fallen out as soon as I merged them.
Unfortunately that pretty much defeats the purpose of splitting this
into three patches. While I suppose one could backport patches 2/3
and 3/3 individually, both of them have a very small footprint
especially considering their patch 1/3 dependency. At the very least
it looks like patch 2/3 needs to be respun to address the
!CONFIG_SECURITY case and seeing the split patches now I think the
smart thing is to just combine them into a single patch. I apologize
for the bad recommendation earlier, I should have followed that thread
a bit closer after the discussion with Casey and Stephen.
--
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com
