linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/7] SELinux: Handle opening of a unioned file

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <557ECBC5.7000705@tycho.nsa.gov>
Date:	Mon, 15 Jun 2015 08:57:41 -0400
From:	Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>
To:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
CC:	linux-unionfs@...r.kernel.org, selinux@...ho.nsa.gov,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, drquigl <drquigl@...ho.nsa.gov>,
	Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] SELinux: Handle opening of a unioned file

On 06/12/2015 11:30 AM, David Howells wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
> 
> David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:
> 
>> Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov> wrote:
>>
>>> Also, would be good to create a common helper for use here, by
>>> selinux_dentry_init_security(), selinux_inode_init_security(), and
>>> may_create().  Already some seeming potential for inconsistencies there.
>>
>> selinux_dentry_init_security() and selinux_inode_init_security() do
>> something different depending on SECURITY_FS_USE_MNTPOINT.  Is the dentry
>> variant wrong?  Shouldn't it be using the mountpoint label if that flag _is_
>> set?
> 
> Any answer to that?

It looks like commit 415103f9932d45f7927f4b17e3a9a13834cdb9a1 changed
selinux_inode_init_security()'s handling of SECURITY_FS_USE_MNTPOINT,
and this change was never propagated to selinux_dentry_init_security().
 However, that commit also did not update
security/selinux/hooks.c:may_create()'s logic for computing the new file
label when checking CREATE permission, and therefore introduced a
potential inconsistency between the label used for the permission check
and the label assigned to the inode.

That's why I suggested that we need a common helper for all three to
ensure consistency there.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/