Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] lsm: separate security_task_getsecid() into subjective and objective variants

On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 7:44 PM Paul Moore <paul(a)paul-moore.com&gt; wrote: > On Sun, Feb 21, 2021 at 7:51 AM John Johansen > <john.johansen(a)canonical.com&gt; wrote: >> On 2/19/21 3:29 PM, Paul Moore wrote: >>> Of the three LSMs that implement the security_task_getsecid() LSM >>> hook, all three LSMs provide the task's objective security >>> credentials. This turns out to be unfortunate as most of the hook's >>> callers seem to expect the task's subjective credentials, although >>> a small handful of callers do correctly expect the objective >>> credentials. >>> >>> This patch is the first step towards fixing the problem: it splits >>> the existing security_task_getsecid() hook into two variants, one >>> for the subjective creds, one for the objective creds. >>> >>> void security_task_getsecid_subj(struct task_struct *p, >>> u32 *secid); >>> void security_task_getsecid_obj(struct task_struct *p, >>> u32 *secid); >>> >>> While this patch does fix all of the callers to use the correct >>> variant, in order to keep this patch focused on the callers and to >>> ease review, the LSMs continue to use the same implementation for >>> both hooks. The net effect is that this patch should not change >>> the behavior of the kernel in any way, it will be up to the latter >>> LSM specific patches in this series to change the hook >>> implementations and return the correct credentials. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Paul Moore <paul(a)paul-moore.com&gt; >> >> So far this looks good. I want to take another stab at it and give >> it some testing > > Checking in as I know you said you needed to fix/release the AppArmor > patch in this series ... is this patch still looking okay to you? If > so, can I get an ACK at least on this patch? Hi John, Any objections if I merge the LSM, SELinux, and Smack patches into the selinux/next tree so that we can start getting some wider testing? If I leave out my poor attempt at an AppArmor patch, the current in-tree AppArmor code should behave exactly as it does today with the apparmor_task_getsecid() function handling both the subjective and objective creds. I can always merge the AppArmor patch later when you have it ready, or you can merge it via your AppArmor tree at a later date.