[PATCH v2 12/25] selinux: add hooks for fscaps operations

[Seth Forshee (DigitalOcean)]

On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 07:19:07PM -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 7:10 PM Seth Forshee (DigitalOcean)
> <sforshee at kernel.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 06:38:33PM -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 4:25 PM Seth Forshee (DigitalOcean)
> > > <sforshee at kernel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Add hooks for set/get/remove fscaps operations which perform the same
> > > > checks as the xattr hooks would have done for XATTR_NAME_CAPS.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Seth Forshee (DigitalOcean) <sforshee at kernel.org>
> > > > ---
> > > >  security/selinux/hooks.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > >  1 file changed, 26 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/security/selinux/hooks.c b/security/selinux/hooks.c
> > > > index a6bf90ace84c..da129a387b34 100644
> > > > --- a/security/selinux/hooks.c
> > > > +++ b/security/selinux/hooks.c
> > > > @@ -3367,6 +3367,29 @@ static int selinux_inode_removexattr(struct mnt_idmap *idmap,
> > > >         return -EACCES;
> > > >  }
> > > >
> > > > +static int selinux_inode_set_fscaps(struct mnt_idmap *idmap,
> > > > +                                   struct dentry *dentry,
> > > > +                                   const struct vfs_caps *caps, int flags)
> > > > +{
> > > > +       return dentry_has_perm(current_cred(), dentry, FILE__SETATTR);
> > > > +}
> > >
> > > The selinux_inode_setxattr() code also has a cap_inode_setxattr()
> > > check which is missing here.  Unless you are handling this somewhere
> > > else, I would expect the function above to look similar to
> > > selinux_inode_remove_fscaps(), but obviously tweaked for setting the
> > > fscaps and not removing them.
> >
> > Right, but cap_inode_setxattr() doesn't do anything for fscaps, so I
> > omitted the call. Unless you think the call should be included in case
> > cap_inode_setxattr() changes in the future, which is a reasonable
> > position.
> 
> Fair enough, but I'd be a lot happier if you included the call in case
> something changes in the future.  I worry that omitting the call would
> make it easier for us to forget about this if/when things change and
> suddenly we have a security issue.  If you are morally opposed to
> that, at the very least put a comment in selinux_inode_set_fscaps()
> about this so we know who to yell at in the future ;)

Makes sense, no objection from me. I'll add it in for v3.