[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAEjxPJ6ZTKeunzJvWf_kS3QYjca6v1yJq=ad-jCCuDSgG6n60g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2020 08:52:01 -0400
From: Stephen Smalley <stephen.smalley.work@...il.com>
To: Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>
Cc: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>, Christian Heimes <christian@...hon.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, Deven Bowers <deven.desai@...ux.microsoft.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>, Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>,
Eric Chiang <ericchiang@...gle.com>, Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@...ux.microsoft.com>, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...gle.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>,
Philippe Trébuchet <philippe.trebuchet@....gouv.fr>,
Scott Shell <scottsh@...rosoft.com>,
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Steve Dower <steve.dower@...hon.org>, Steve Grubb <sgrubb@...hat.com>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
Thibaut Sautereau <thibaut.sautereau@...p-os.org>,
Vincent Strubel <vincent.strubel@....gouv.fr>, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thibaut Sautereau <thibaut.sautereau@....gouv.fr>,
Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ux.microsoft.com>,
John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v8 1/3] fs: Introduce AT_INTERPRETED flag for faccessat2(2)
On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 8:50 AM Stephen Smalley
<stephen.smalley.work@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 8:43 AM Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 08/09/2020 14:28, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > > Hi Mickael,
> > >
> > > On Tue, 2020-09-08 at 09:59 +0200, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> > >> + mode |= MAY_INTERPRETED_EXEC;
> > >> + /*
> > >> + * For compatibility reasons, if the system-wide policy
> > >> + * doesn't enforce file permission checks, then
> > >> + * replaces the execute permission request with a read
> > >> + * permission request.
> > >> + */
> > >> + mode &= ~MAY_EXEC;
> > >> + /* To be executed *by* user space, files must be readable. */
> > >> + mode |= MAY_READ;
> > >
> > > After this change, I'm wondering if it makes sense to add a call to
> > > security_file_permission(). IMA doesn't currently define it, but
> > > could.
> >
> > Yes, that's the idea. We could replace the following inode_permission()
> > with file_permission(). I'm not sure how this will impact other LSMs though.
>
> They are not equivalent at least as far as SELinux is concerned.
> security_file_permission() was only to be used to revalidate
> read/write permissions previously checked at file open to support
> policy changes and file or process label changes. We'd have to modify
> the SELinux hook if we wanted to have it check execute access even if
> nothing has changed since open time.
Also Smack doesn't appear to implement file_permission at all, so it
would skip Smack checking.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
