On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 11:05 AM Christian Göttsche <cgzones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 at 00:34, Serge E. Hallyn <serge@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 05:26:23PM +0200, Christian Göttsche wrote: > > > Add the interfaces `capable_any()` and `ns_capable_any()` as an > > > alternative to multiple `capable()`/`ns_capable()` calls, like > > > `capable_any(CAP_SYS_NICE, CAP_SYS_ADMIN)` instead of > > > `capable(CAP_SYS_NICE) || capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)`. > > > > > > `capable_any()`/`ns_capable_any()` will in particular generate exactly > > > one audit message, either for the left most capability in effect or, if > > > the task has none, the first one. > > > > > > This is especially helpful with regard to SELinux, where each audit > > > message about a not allowed capability will create an AVC denial. > > > Using this function with the least invasive capability as left most > > > argument (e.g. CAP_SYS_NICE before CAP_SYS_ADMIN) enables policy writers > > > to only allow the least invasive one and SELinux domains pass this check > > > with only capability:sys_nice or capability:sys_admin allowed without > > > any AVC denial message. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Christian Göttsche <cgzones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Reviewed-by: Serge Hallyn <serge@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Kindly ping. > > So far patch 3 was reviewed [1] and patch 4 was reviewed [2,3] and > partially acked [4]. > > Currently this series trivially rebases on top of 6.0-rc1. > Should I send a rebased v4 or what is the best way to move forward? Hi Christian, Sorry for the delay, this is one of those things that was stalled a bit during the maintainer hand-off. It's on my list of things to look at, it is just unfortunate that we have had a lot of things going on at the LSM layer lately; don't respin it just yet, let me take a quick look first ... -- paul-moore.com
