linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the apparmor tree with the security tree

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: <CAHC9VhQ+Nt7CrLxSZcOVNEtAypruOmM0ST0P0JJMrOq4XYmAkw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 28 Oct 2023 11:32:10 -0400
From:   Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the apparmor tree with the security tree

On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 10:03 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the apparmor tree got a conflict in:
>
>   security/apparmor/lsm.c
>
> between commit:
>
>   3c3bda37ca1d ("AppArmor: Add selfattr hooks")
>
> from the security tree and commits:
>
>   bd7bd201ca46 ("apparmor: combine common_audit_data and apparmor_audit_data")
>   d20f5a1a6e79 ("apparmor: rename audit_data->label to audit_data->subj_label")
>
> from the apparmor tree.
>
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> complex conflicts.

Thanks Stephen.

John, can you take a look and make sure this is correct (it looks okay to me)?

> diff --cc security/apparmor/lsm.c
> index 5e16c03936b9,4d34180e9799..000000000000
> --- a/security/apparmor/lsm.c
> +++ b/security/apparmor/lsm.c
> @@@ -771,16 -868,11 +917,16 @@@ out
>         return error;
>
>   fail:
> -       aad(&sa)->label = begin_current_label_crit_section();
> +       ad.subj_label = begin_current_label_crit_section();
>  -      ad.info = name;
>  +      if (attr == LSM_ATTR_CURRENT)
> -               aad(&sa)->info = "current";
> ++              ad.info = "current";
>  +      else if (attr == LSM_ATTR_EXEC)
> -               aad(&sa)->info = "exec";
> ++              ad.info = "exec";
>  +      else
> -               aad(&sa)->info = "invalid";
> -       aad(&sa)->error = error = -EINVAL;
> -       aa_audit_msg(AUDIT_APPARMOR_DENIED, &sa, NULL);
> -       end_current_label_crit_section(aad(&sa)->label);
> ++              ad.info = "invalid";
> +       ad.error = error = -EINVAL;
> +       aa_audit_msg(AUDIT_APPARMOR_DENIED, &ad, NULL);
> +       end_current_label_crit_section(ad.subj_label);
>         goto out;
>   }

-- 
paul-moore.com