[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhQvpGUVzv=6M9f4NNn_qi+kjHPMVoppmSitHs6HVgZDOg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2023 15:22:54 -0400
From: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>,
Matthew House <mattlloydhouse@...il.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-man@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, Karel Zak <kzak@...hat.com>,
Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] add listmnt(2) syscall
On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 6:07 AM Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Sept 2023 at 18:48, Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com> wrote:
>
> > > Ideally we avoid multiple capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN) calls by only doing it
> > > once and saving the return value. capable() call's aren't that cheap.
> >
> > Agreed. The capability check doesn't do any subject/object
> > comparisons so calling it for each mount is overkill. However, I
> > would think we would want the LSM hook called from inside the loop as
> > that could involve a subject (@current) and object (individual mount
> > point) comparison.
My apologies, I was traveling and while I was quickly checking my
email each day this message was lost. I'm very sorry for the delay in
responding.
> The security_sb_statfs() one?
Yes.
> Should a single failure result in a complete failure?
My opinion is that it should only result in the failure of that
listing/stat'ing that particular mount; if other mounts are allowed to
be queried than the operation should be allowed to continue.
> Why is it not enough to check permission on the parent?
Each mount has the potential to have a unique security identify in the
context of the LSM, and since the LSM access controls are generally
intended to support a subject-verb-object access control policy we
need to examine the subject and object together (the subject here is
@current, the object is the individual mount, and the verb is the
stat/list operation).
Does that make sense?
I'm looking at the v3 patchset right now, I've got some small nits,
but I'll add those to that thread.
--
paul-moore.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists