[PATCH v14 22/23] LSM: Add /proc attr entry for full LSM context

[Stephen Smalley]

On 2/10/20 2:00 PM, John Johansen wrote:
> On 2/10/20 10:32 AM, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>> Because attr/context (and later, SO_PEERCONTEXT) are new interfaces
>> there is no need to exactly duplicate what is in attr/current (later
>> SO_PEERSEC). I already plan to omit the "mode" component of the
>> AppArmor data in the AppArmor hook, as was discussed earlier. I would
>> prefer ASCII, but if AppArmor needs bytestrings, that's what we'll
>> have to do.
>>
> 
> sadly, to not break userspace its a byte string because that is what the 
> path based profile names are. AppArmor does support a more limited non 
> path based profile name but I can't guarantee that is what userspace is 
> using in policy.

Ok, so /proc/pid/attr/context and SO_PEERCONTEXT have to be defined as 
returning bytestrings.

So far we've talked about having AppArmor drop the trailing newline, be 
consistent with regard to whether the terminating NUL is included or 
excluded, and drop the mode field from what it returns for 
/proc/pid/attr/context and SO_PEERCONTEXT versus the current 
/proc/pid/attr/current and SO_PEERSEC.  Is that correct?

How do we envision a liblsm processing the value returned from 
/proc/pid/attr/context or SO_PEEERCONTEXT?  It can certainly split it up 
per LSM.  But can it then take the apparmor portion of the context and 
pass that to existing libapparmor interfaces without breakage?  Or will 
the changes to the format described above create issues there?