Re: [PATCH v2] security: Restore passing final prot to ima_file_mmap()

[Paul Moore]

On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 3:30 AM Roberto Sassu
<roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 2023-01-20 at 16:04 -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 5:53 AM Roberto Sassu
> > <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2023-01-12 at 12:45 -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2023-01-12 at 13:36 +0100, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 2023-01-11 at 09:25 -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 4:31 AM Roberto Sassu
> > > > > > <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Fri, 2023-01-06 at 16:14 -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 9:10 AM Roberto Sassu
> > > > > > > > <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > From: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Commit 98de59bfe4b2f ("take calculation of final prot in
> > > > > > > > > security_mmap_file() into a helper") moved the code to update prot with the
> > > > > > > > > actual protection flags to be granted to the requestor by the kernel to a
> > > > > > > > > helper called mmap_prot(). However, the patch didn't update the argument
> > > > > > > > > passed to ima_file_mmap(), making it receive the requested prot instead of
> > > > > > > > > the final computed prot.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > A possible consequence is that files mmapped as executable might not be
> > > > > > > > > measured/appraised if PROT_EXEC is not requested but subsequently added in
> > > > > > > > > the final prot.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Replace prot with mmap_prot(file, prot) as the second argument of
> > > > > > > > > ima_file_mmap() to restore the original behavior.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > > > > Fixes: 98de59bfe4b2 ("take calculation of final prot in security_mmap_file() into a helper")
> > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > >  security/security.c | 2 +-
> > > > > > > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > diff --git a/security/security.c b/security/security.c
> > > > > > > > > index d1571900a8c7..0d2359d588a1 100644
> > > > > > > > > --- a/security/security.c
> > > > > > > > > +++ b/security/security.c
> > > > > > > > > @@ -1666,7 +1666,7 @@ int security_mmap_file(struct file *file, unsigned long prot,
> > > > > > > > >                                         mmap_prot(file, prot), flags);
> > > > > > > > >         if (ret)
> > > > > > > > >                 return ret;
> > > > > > > > > -       return ima_file_mmap(file, prot);
> > > > > > > > > +       return ima_file_mmap(file, mmap_prot(file, prot));
> > > > > > > > >  }
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This seems like a reasonable fix, although as the original commit is
> > > > > > > > ~10 years old at this point I am a little concerned about the impact
> > > > > > > > this might have on IMA.  Mimi, what do you think?
> >
> > So ... where do we stand on this patch, Mimi, Roberto?  I stand by my
> > original comment, but I would want to see an ACK from Mimi at the very
> > least before merging this upstream.  If this isn't ACK-able, do we
> > have a plan to resolve this soon?
>
> Sorry, I had business trips last week. Will send the patches this week.

No worries, I just wasn't sure of the status and wanted to check in on this.

-- 
paul-moore.com