[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhSjTqT-4TMxBnQOQHkj+djONihfeoPVyy1egrZY2t10XA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2022 17:27:02 -0500
From: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To: Demi Marie Obenour <demiobenour@...il.com>
Cc: Stephen Smalley <stephen.smalley.work@...il.com>,
Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>, selinux@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] SELinux: Always allow FIOCLEX and FIONCLEX
On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 4:34 PM Demi Marie Obenour
<demiobenour@...il.com> wrote:
>
> These ioctls are equivalent to fcntl(fd, F_SETFD, flags), which SELinux
> always allows too. Furthermore, a failed FIOCLEX could result in a file
> descriptor being leaked to a process that should not have access to it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Demi Marie Obenour <demiobenour@...il.com>
> ---
> security/selinux/hooks.c | 5 +++++
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
I'm not convinced that these two ioctls should be exempt from SELinux
policy control, can you explain why allowing these ioctls with the
file:ioctl permission is not sufficient for your use case? Is it a
matter of granularity?
> diff --git a/security/selinux/hooks.c b/security/selinux/hooks.c
> index 5b6895e4fc29..8f3b2f15c1f3 100644
> --- a/security/selinux/hooks.c
> +++ b/security/selinux/hooks.c
> @@ -3728,6 +3728,11 @@ static int selinux_file_ioctl(struct file *file, unsigned int cmd,
> error = file_has_perm(cred, file, FILE__GETATTR);
> break;
>
> + /* must always succeed */
> + case FIOCLEX:
> + case FIONCLEX:
> + break;
> +
> case FS_IOC_SETFLAGS:
> case FS_IOC_SETVERSION:
> error = file_has_perm(cred, file, FILE__SETATTR);
--
paul-moore.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists