linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/2] selinux: Fix selinux_sb_mnt_opts

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: <CAHC9VhQE4JPhTjkKwV3ovRSuPceiHDrP3MDW4RPDcNtLkb7tAQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 31 Jan 2022 11:16:01 -0500
From:   Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To:     Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@...hat.com>
Cc:     Scott Mayhew <smayhew@...hat.com>,
        SElinux list <selinux@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-nfs <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/2] selinux: Fix selinux_sb_mnt_opts_compat()

On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 7:46 AM Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 3:28 AM Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 4:54 AM Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@...hat.com> wrote:
> > > I wonder if we could make this all much simpler by *always* doing the
> > > label parsing in selinux_add_opt() and just returning an error when
> > > !selinux_initialized(&selinux_state). Before the new mount API, mount
> > > options were always passed directly to the mount(2) syscall, so it
> > > wasn't possible to pass any SELinux mount options before the SELinux
> > > policy was loaded. I don't see why we need to jump through hoops here
> > > just to support this pseudo-feature of stashing an unparsed label into
> > > an fs_context before policy is loaded... Userspace should never need
> > > to do that.
> >
> > I could agree with that, although part of my mind is a little nervous
> > about the "userspace should *never* ..." because that always seems to
> > bite us.  Although I'm struggling to think of a case where userspace
> > would need to set explicit SELinux mount options without having a
> > policy loaded.
>
> I get that, but IMO this is enough of an odd "use case" that I
> wouldn't worry too much ...

I understand, but seeing as I'm the only one that defends these things
with Linus and others lets do this:

1. Fix what we have now using Scott's patches once he incorporates the feedback.
2. Merge another patch (separate patch(set) please!) which does the
parsing in selinux_add_opt().

... this was if we have to revert #2 we still have the fixes in #1.

-- 
paul-moore.com