[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5j+ayWRKxn5EneOAJO-XXTo2qsxo-nwKLtjoM60_H6PFOA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 18:37:17 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
Cc: Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/15] selinux: Refactor to remove bprm_secureexec hook
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 8:03 PM, Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 6:25 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>>> The SELinux bprm_secureexec hook can be merged with the bprm_set_creds
>>> hook since it's dealing with the same information, and all of the details
>>> are finalized during the first call to the bprm_set_creds hook via
>>> prepare_binprm() (subsequent calls due to binfmt_script, etc, are ignored
>>> via bprm->called_set_creds).
>>>
>>> Here, the test can just happen at the end of the bprm_set_creds hook,
>>> and the bprm_secureexec hook can be dropped.
>>>
>>> Cc: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
>>> Cc: Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>
>>> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
>>> ---
>>> security/selinux/hooks.c | 24 +++++-------------------
>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>>
>> This seems reasonable in the context of the other changes.
>>
>> Stephen just posted an AT_SECURE test for the selinux-testsuite on the
>> SELinux mailing list, it would be nice to ensure that this patchset
>> doesn't run afoul of that.
>
> Quick follow-up: I just merged Stephen's test into the test suite:
>
> * https://github.com/SELinuxProject/selinux-testsuite
Is there a quick how-to on just running the AT_SECURE test?
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security
Powered by blists - more mailing lists