Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] Split security_task_getsecid() into subj and obj variants

On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 6:59 PM Casey Schaufler <casey(a)schaufler-ca.com&gt; wrote: > On 2/20/2021 6:41 AM, Paul Moore wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 8:49 PM Casey Schaufler <casey(a)schaufler-ca.com&gt; wrote: >>> On 2/19/2021 3:28 PM, Paul Moore wrote: >>>> As discussed briefly on the list (lore link below), we are a little >>>> sloppy when it comes to using task credentials, mixing both the >>>> subjective and object credentials. This patch set attempts to fix >>>> this by replacing security_task_getsecid() with two new hooks that >>>> return either the subjective (_subj) or objective (_obj) credentials. >>>> >>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-security-module/806848326.0ifERbkFSE@x2/T/ >>>> >>>> Casey and John, I made a quick pass through the Smack and AppArmor >>>> code in an effort to try and do the right thing, but I will admit >>>> that I haven't tested those changes, just the SELinux code. I >>>> would really appreciate your help in reviewing those changes. If >>>> you find it easier, feel free to wholesale replace my Smack/AppArmor >>>> patch with one of your own. >>> A quick test pass didn't show up anything obviously >>> amiss with the Smack changes. I have will do some more >>> through inspection, but they look fine so far. >> Thanks for testing it out and giving it a look. Beyond the Smack >> specific changes, I'm also interested in making sure all the hook >> callers are correct; I believe I made the correct substitutions, but a >> second (or third (or fourth ...)) set of eyes is never a bad idea. > I'm still not seeing anything that looks wrong. I'd suggest that Mimi > have a look at the IMA bits. Assuming you are still good with these changes Casey, any chance I can get an ACK on the LSM and Smack patches?