On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 07:15:35PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 11:33:11AM -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 04:31:22PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 04:22:50PM +0200, Jari Ruusu wrote: > > > > Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > > From: Alistair Delva <adelva@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > commit 94c4b4fd25e6c3763941bdec3ad54f2204afa992 upstream. > > > > [SNIP] > > > > > --- a/block/ioprio.c > > > > > +++ b/block/ioprio.c > > > > > @@ -69,7 +69,14 @@ int ioprio_check_cap(int ioprio) > > > > > > > > > > switch (class) { > > > > > case IOPRIO_CLASS_RT: > > > > > - if (!capable(CAP_SYS_NICE) && !capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)) > > > > > + /* > > > > > + * Originally this only checked for CAP_SYS_ADMIN, > > > > > + * which was implicitly allowed for pid 0 by security > > > > > + * modules such as SELinux. Make sure we check > > > > > + * CAP_SYS_ADMIN first to avoid a denial/avc for > > > > > + * possibly missing CAP_SYS_NICE permission. > > > > > + */ > > > > > + if (!capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN) && !capable(CAP_SYS_NICE)) > > > > > return -EPERM; > > > > > fallthrough; > > > > > /* rt has prio field too */ > > > > > > > > What exactly is above patch trying to fix? > > > > It does not change control flow at all, and added comment is misleading. > > > > > > See the thread on the mailing list for what it does and why it is > > > needed. > > > > > > It does change the result when selinux is enabled. > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > greg k-h > > > > The case where we create a newer more fine grained capability which is a > > sub-cap of a broader capability like CAP_SYS_ADMIN is analogous. See > > check_syslog_permissions() for instance. > > > > So I think a helper like > > > > int capable_either_or(int cap1, int cap2) { > > if (has_capability_noaudit(current, cap1)) > > return 0; > > return capable(cap2); > > } > > > > might be worthwhile. > > Sure, feel free to work on that and submit it, but for now, this change > is needed. Sorry I misread the subject and thought this was just a resubmission. FWIW I had acked an earlier version of this. -serge