Re: [PATCH v3 1/8] capability: add any wrapper to test for multiple caps with exactly one audit message

[Paul Moore]

On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 11:05 AM Christian Göttsche
<cgzones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 at 00:34, Serge E. Hallyn <serge@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 05:26:23PM +0200, Christian Göttsche wrote:
> > > Add the interfaces `capable_any()` and `ns_capable_any()` as an
> > > alternative to multiple `capable()`/`ns_capable()` calls, like
> > > `capable_any(CAP_SYS_NICE, CAP_SYS_ADMIN)` instead of
> > > `capable(CAP_SYS_NICE) || capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)`.
> > >
> > > `capable_any()`/`ns_capable_any()` will in particular generate exactly
> > > one audit message, either for the left most capability in effect or, if
> > > the task has none, the first one.
> > >
> > > This is especially helpful with regard to SELinux, where each audit
> > > message about a not allowed capability will create an AVC denial.
> > > Using this function with the least invasive capability as left most
> > > argument (e.g. CAP_SYS_NICE before CAP_SYS_ADMIN) enables policy writers
> > > to only allow the least invasive one and SELinux domains pass this check
> > > with only capability:sys_nice or capability:sys_admin allowed without
> > > any AVC denial message.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Christian Göttsche <cgzones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Serge Hallyn <serge@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Kindly ping.
>
> So far patch 3 was reviewed [1] and patch 4 was reviewed [2,3] and
> partially acked [4].
>
> Currently this series trivially rebases on top of 6.0-rc1.
> Should I send a rebased v4 or what is the best way to move forward?

Hi Christian,

Sorry for the delay, this is one of those things that was stalled a
bit during the maintainer hand-off.  It's on my list of things to look
at, it is just unfortunate that we have had a lot of things going on
at the LSM layer lately; don't respin it just yet, let me take a quick
look first ...

-- 
paul-moore.com