[RFC PATCH 1/4] lsm: separate security_task_getsecid() into subjective and objective variants

[Paul Moore]

On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 3:21 AM Jeffrey Vander Stoep <jeffv at google.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 12:44 AM Paul Moore <paul at paul-moore.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 5:04 AM Jeffrey Vander Stoep <jeffv at google.com> wrote:
> > > On Sat, Feb 20, 2021 at 3:45 PM Paul Moore <paul at paul-moore.com> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 9:57 PM James Morris <jmorris at namei.org> wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, 19 Feb 2021, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/android/binder.c b/drivers/android/binder.c
> > > > > > index c119736ca56ac..39d501261108d 100644
> > > > > > --- a/drivers/android/binder.c
> > > > > > +++ b/drivers/android/binder.c
> > > > > > @@ -2700,7 +2700,7 @@ static void binder_transaction(struct binder_proc *proc,
> > > > > >               u32 secid;
> > > > > >               size_t added_size;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -             security_task_getsecid(proc->tsk, &secid);
> > > > > > +             security_task_getsecid_subj(proc->tsk, &secid);
> > > > > >               ret = security_secid_to_secctx(secid, &secctx, &secctx_sz);
> > > > > >               if (ret) {
> > > > > >                       return_error = BR_FAILED_REPLY;
> > > > >
> > > > > Can someone from the Android project confirm this is correct for binder?
> > >
> > > This looks correct to me.
> >
> > Thanks for the verification.  Should I assume the SELinux specific
> > binder changes looked okay too?
> >
> Yes, those also look good to me.

Thanks, that binder changes were the one area I wasn't 100% on, I
appreciate the verification.

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com