Re: [PATCH] security/selinux: fix /proc/sys/ labeling

[Lucian Adrian Grijincu]

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 5:59 PM, Stephen Smalley <sds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Just the earlier one. I added his sign-off because of this paragraph
>> in SubmittingPatches:
>> | The Signed-off-by: tag indicates that the signer was involved in the
>> | development of the patch, or that he/she was in the patch's delivery path.


So should I leave Eric's sign-off here?


>> Without we label all nodes in /proc/ through selinux_proc_get_sid.
>>
>> /proc/1/limits should not get it's sid from here, but from
>> security_task_to_inode -> selinux_task_to_inode.
>>
>> Without the check we send "/1/limits" to selinux_proc_get_sid, which
>> strips off "/1" leaving "/limits". This will be labeled with "proc_t"
>> IIRC.
>
> Are you sure? ÂThose inodes should be labeled by proc_pid_make_inode()
> -> security_task_to_inode() -> selinux_task_to_inode(), which will set
> the inode SID to match the associated task SID, and set the
> isec->initialized flag. ÂThen when inode_doinit_with_dentry gets called
> later, it should bail immediately due to isec->initialized already being
> set.



I'll post an updated patch without those checks. I tested and 'find
/proc | xargs ls -Z' said the same thing with and without those
checks.

I remember doing the same test yesterday and saw some differences, but
I must have compared the wrong files.

-- 
Â.
..: Lucian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/