[RFC PATCH 0/4] Split security_task_getsecid() into subj and obj variants

Paul Moore paul at paul-moore.com
Thu Mar 4 00:46:55 UTC 2021

On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 6:59 PM Casey Schaufler <casey at schaufler-ca.com> wrote:
> On 2/20/2021 6:41 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 8:49 PM Casey Schaufler <casey at schaufler-ca.com> wrote:
> >> On 2/19/2021 3:28 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> >>> As discussed briefly on the list (lore link below), we are a little
> >>> sloppy when it comes to using task credentials, mixing both the
> >>> subjective and object credentials.  This patch set attempts to fix
> >>> this by replacing security_task_getsecid() with two new hooks that
> >>> return either the subjective (_subj) or objective (_obj) credentials.
> >>>
> >>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-security-module/806848326.0ifERbkFSE@x2/T/
> >>>
> >>> Casey and John, I made a quick pass through the Smack and AppArmor
> >>> code in an effort to try and do the right thing, but I will admit
> >>> that I haven't tested those changes, just the SELinux code.  I
> >>> would really appreciate your help in reviewing those changes.  If
> >>> you find it easier, feel free to wholesale replace my Smack/AppArmor
> >>> patch with one of your own.
> >> A quick test pass didn't show up anything obviously
> >> amiss with the Smack changes. I have will do some more
> >> through inspection, but they look fine so far.
> > Thanks for testing it out and giving it a look.  Beyond the Smack
> > specific changes, I'm also interested in making sure all the hook
> > callers are correct; I believe I made the correct substitutions, but a
> > second (or third (or fourth ...)) set of eyes is never a bad idea.
> I'm still not seeing anything that looks wrong. I'd suggest that Mimi
> have a look at the IMA bits.

Assuming you are still good with these changes Casey, any chance I can
get an ACK on the LSM and Smack patches?

paul moore

More information about the Linux-security-module-archive mailing list