linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/8] capability: add any wrapper to test for multiple caps with exactly one audit message

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]

Date:   Tue, 30 Aug 2022 17:05:06 +0200
From:   Christian Göttsche <cgzones@...glemail.com>
To:     "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>
Cc:     selinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/8] capability: add any wrapper to test for multiple
 caps with exactly one audit message

On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 at 00:34, Serge E. Hallyn <serge@...lyn.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 05:26:23PM +0200, Christian Göttsche wrote:
> > Add the interfaces `capable_any()` and `ns_capable_any()` as an
> > alternative to multiple `capable()`/`ns_capable()` calls, like
> > `capable_any(CAP_SYS_NICE, CAP_SYS_ADMIN)` instead of
> > `capable(CAP_SYS_NICE) || capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)`.
> >
> > `capable_any()`/`ns_capable_any()` will in particular generate exactly
> > one audit message, either for the left most capability in effect or, if
> > the task has none, the first one.
> >
> > This is especially helpful with regard to SELinux, where each audit
> > message about a not allowed capability will create an AVC denial.
> > Using this function with the least invasive capability as left most
> > argument (e.g. CAP_SYS_NICE before CAP_SYS_ADMIN) enables policy writers
> > to only allow the least invasive one and SELinux domains pass this check
> > with only capability:sys_nice or capability:sys_admin allowed without
> > any AVC denial message.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Christian Göttsche <cgzones@...glemail.com>
>
> Reviewed-by: Serge Hallyn <serge@...lyn.com>
>

Kindly ping.

So far patch 3 was reviewed [1] and patch 4 was reviewed [2,3] and
partially acked [4].

Currently this series trivially rebases on top of 6.0-rc1.
Should I send a rebased v4 or what is the best way to move forward?

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/7fd6f544-0bd2-62fe-bddd-869364f351e8@acm.org/
[2]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/Yqn+sCXTHeTH5v+R@pendragon.ideasonboard.com/
[3]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/09374557-8c8d-1925-340c-784f29630ec5@kernel.org/
[4]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/73a603a2-5e5e-1b45-8e19-ab0795027336@xs4all.nl/