[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhReGcV=cngDMmAcEiS2NpkXZQ6b09go9m0omzxLdrUQXg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2021 14:59:31 -0400
From: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc: Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@...hat.com>,
Linux Security Module list
<linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Stephen Smalley <stephen.smalley.work@...il.com>,
SElinux list <selinux@...r.kernel.org>,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org, linux-efi <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux PCI <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-pm mailing list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Kexec Mailing List <kexec@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] lockdown,selinux: fix wrong subject in some SELinux
lockdown checks
On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 2:58 PM Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 6:53 AM Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 5:09 AM Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@...hat.com> wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jun 19, 2021 at 12:18 AM Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 1:51 AM Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/cxl/mem.c b/drivers/cxl/mem.c
> > > > > index 2acc6173da36..c1747b6555c7 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/cxl/mem.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/cxl/mem.c
> > > > > @@ -568,7 +568,7 @@ static bool cxl_mem_raw_command_allowed(u16 opcode)
> > > > > if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CXL_MEM_RAW_COMMANDS))
> > > > > return false;
> > > > >
> > > > > - if (security_locked_down(LOCKDOWN_NONE))
> > > > > + if (security_locked_down(current_cred(), LOCKDOWN_NONE))
> > > >
> > > > Acked-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
> > > >
> > > > ...however that usage looks wrong. The expectation is that if kernel
> > > > integrity protections are enabled then raw command access should be
> > > > disabled. So I think that should be equivalent to LOCKDOWN_PCI_ACCESS
> > > > in terms of the command capabilities to filter.
> > >
> > > Yes, the LOCKDOWN_NONE seems wrong here... but it's a pre-existing bug
> > > and I didn't want to go down yet another rabbit hole trying to fix it.
> > > I'll look at this again once this patch is settled - it may indeed be
> > > as simple as replacing LOCKDOWN_NONE with LOCKDOWN_PCI_ACCESS.
> >
> > At this point you should be well aware of my distaste for merging
> > patches that have known bugs in them. Yes, this is a pre-existing
> > condition, but it seems well within the scope of this work to address
> > it as well.
> >
> > This isn't something that is going to get merged while the merge
> > window is open, so at the very least you've got almost two weeks to
> > sort this out - please do that.
>
> Yes, apologies, I should have sent the fix shortly after noticing the
> problem. I'll get the CXL bug fix out of the way so Ondrej can move
> this along.
Thanks Dan.
--
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists