RE: [PATCH] Smack: Use secureexec with SMACK64EXEC

[Ryan Ware]

> -----Original Message-----
> 
> 
> bprm->unsafe isn't private to your security module, unlike e.g.
> bprm->cred->security.  And it isn't intended to indicate that a
> secureexec is being performed, but instead as an indicator that a
> credential-changing exec may be unsafe.  Which you presently ignore.
> Defining and setting a new flag in it will have interesting side effects,
> e.g. consider cap_bprm_secureexec, not to mention being a layering
> violation and a source of future conflicts.
> 
> Why can't your bprm_secureexec hook just test isp->smk_task directly?
> It can reach it from the bprm.  Or if you don't like testing it twice,
> then you could always add a flag to your struct referenced by
> bprm->cred->security, i.e. the smack_task struct.
> 
> BTW, there is a lot more to do if you want SMACK64EXEC to be safe.

Thanks for the feedback Stephen.  Could you be more detailed on what else you feel needs to be in place to make SMACK64EXEC safe?

Ryan

--
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/