On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 3:30 AM Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 2023-01-20 at 16:04 -0500, Paul Moore wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 5:53 AM Roberto Sassu > > <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Thu, 2023-01-12 at 12:45 -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2023-01-12 at 13:36 +0100, Roberto Sassu wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 2023-01-11 at 09:25 -0500, Paul Moore wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 4:31 AM Roberto Sassu > > > > > > <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, 2023-01-06 at 16:14 -0500, Paul Moore wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 9:10 AM Roberto Sassu > > > > > > > > <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > From: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Commit 98de59bfe4b2f ("take calculation of final prot in > > > > > > > > > security_mmap_file() into a helper") moved the code to update prot with the > > > > > > > > > actual protection flags to be granted to the requestor by the kernel to a > > > > > > > > > helper called mmap_prot(). However, the patch didn't update the argument > > > > > > > > > passed to ima_file_mmap(), making it receive the requested prot instead of > > > > > > > > > the final computed prot. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A possible consequence is that files mmapped as executable might not be > > > > > > > > > measured/appraised if PROT_EXEC is not requested but subsequently added in > > > > > > > > > the final prot. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Replace prot with mmap_prot(file, prot) as the second argument of > > > > > > > > > ima_file_mmap() to restore the original behavior. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > > > > > > Fixes: 98de59bfe4b2 ("take calculation of final prot in security_mmap_file() into a helper") > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > security/security.c | 2 +- > > > > > > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/security/security.c b/security/security.c > > > > > > > > > index d1571900a8c7..0d2359d588a1 100644 > > > > > > > > > --- a/security/security.c > > > > > > > > > +++ b/security/security.c > > > > > > > > > @@ -1666,7 +1666,7 @@ int security_mmap_file(struct file *file, unsigned long prot, > > > > > > > > > mmap_prot(file, prot), flags); > > > > > > > > > if (ret) > > > > > > > > > return ret; > > > > > > > > > - return ima_file_mmap(file, prot); > > > > > > > > > + return ima_file_mmap(file, mmap_prot(file, prot)); > > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This seems like a reasonable fix, although as the original commit is > > > > > > > > ~10 years old at this point I am a little concerned about the impact > > > > > > > > this might have on IMA. Mimi, what do you think? > > > > So ... where do we stand on this patch, Mimi, Roberto? I stand by my > > original comment, but I would want to see an ACK from Mimi at the very > > least before merging this upstream. If this isn't ACK-able, do we > > have a plan to resolve this soon? > > Sorry, I had business trips last week. Will send the patches this week. No worries, I just wasn't sure of the status and wanted to check in on this. -- paul-moore.com