From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com>
To: Stephen Smalley <sds@epoch.ncsc.mil>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, Chris Wright <chrisw@osdl.org>,
James Morris <jmorris@redhat.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Properly split capset_check+capset_set
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 17:22:22 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20041215232222.GD888@IBM-BWN8ZTBWA01.austin.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1103142857.32732.13.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil>
Quoting Stephen Smalley (sds@epoch.ncsc.mil):
> On Wed, 2004-12-15 at 14:48, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > The attached patch (against 2.6.10-rc3-mm1 w/ ioctl patch) removes the
> > redundant cap_capset_check hook and moves the security_capset_check
> > call to just before security_capset_set. The selinux_capset_set hook
> > now simply sets the capability (through its secondary), while
> > selinux_capset_check checks the authorization permission.
>
> One minor complaint: the caller of capset() will no longer receive any
> error code if security_capset_check() fails. I don't think that it is
Good point. I was thinking in terms of cap_capset_check(), and lack of
that permission still returns an error, but selinux_capset_check's
return value in particular is not being reported.
How about the attached patch?
> necessary to preserve any error return in the cases where capset() is
> being applied to multiple processes, but in the case where it is being
> applied to a single specific process, it would be nice if any error
> return from security_capset_check() would be returned to the caller.
In the case of pid<0, would we want to do something like "return an error
if none of the sets was allowed, else return 0", or is that too ugly?
> I also wonder whether the existing hardcoded checks should be moved into
> the new security_capset_check() hook function for dummy and commoncap so
> that they will be applied to the real target, even when pid < 0.
> Otherwise, those hardcoded checks seem bogus in the pid < 0 case, as
> they are then applied to current rather than to the true targets.
True, this (testing applicability of caps to the real targets in pid<0 case)
certainly seems like a good thing, so the attached patch leaves that
check in cap_capset_check, and just removes it from sys_capset() instead.
thanks,
-serge
Signed-off-by: Serge Hallyn <serue@us.ibm.com>
Index: linux-2.6.10-rc3-mm1/kernel/capability.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.10-rc3-mm1.orig/kernel/capability.c 2004-12-15 17:14:39.080628184 -0600
+++ linux-2.6.10-rc3-mm1/kernel/capability.c 2004-12-15 17:23:43.617845944 -0600
@@ -93,8 +93,14 @@ static inline void cap_set_pg(int pgrp,
do_each_task_pid(pgrp, PIDTYPE_PGID, g) {
target = g;
- while_each_thread(g, target)
- security_capset_set(target, effective, inheritable, permitted);
+ while_each_thread(g, target) {
+ if (!security_capset_check(target, effective,
+ inheritable,
+ permitted))
+ security_capset_set(target, effective,
+ inheritable,
+ permitted);
+ }
} while_each_task_pid(pgrp, PIDTYPE_PGID, g);
}
@@ -111,6 +117,9 @@ static inline void cap_set_all(kernel_ca
do_each_thread(g, target) {
if (target == current || target->pid == 1)
continue;
+ if (security_capset_check(target, effective, inheritable,
+ permitted))
+ continue;
security_capset_set(target, effective, inheritable, permitted);
} while_each_thread(g, target);
}
@@ -167,24 +176,6 @@ asmlinkage long sys_capset(cap_user_head
} else
target = current;
- ret = -EPERM;
-
- if (security_capset_check(target, &effective, &inheritable, &permitted))
- goto out;
-
- if (!cap_issubset(inheritable, cap_combine(target->cap_inheritable,
- current->cap_permitted)))
- goto out;
-
- /* verify restrictions on target's new Permitted set */
- if (!cap_issubset(permitted, cap_combine(target->cap_permitted,
- current->cap_permitted)))
- goto out;
-
- /* verify the _new_Effective_ is a subset of the _new_Permitted_ */
- if (!cap_issubset(effective, permitted))
- goto out;
-
ret = 0;
/* having verified that the proposed changes are legal,
@@ -196,7 +187,11 @@ asmlinkage long sys_capset(cap_user_head
else /* all procs in process group */
cap_set_pg(-pid, &effective, &inheritable, &permitted);
} else {
- security_capset_set(target, &effective, &inheritable, &permitted);
+ ret = security_capset_check(target, &effective, &inheritable,
+ &permitted);
+ if (!ret)
+ security_capset_set(target, &effective, &inheritable,
+ &permitted);
}
out:
Index: linux-2.6.10-rc3-mm1/security/selinux/hooks.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.10-rc3-mm1.orig/security/selinux/hooks.c 2004-12-15 17:14:39.081628032 -0600
+++ linux-2.6.10-rc3-mm1/security/selinux/hooks.c 2004-12-15 17:25:55.381814776 -0600
@@ -1405,12 +1405,6 @@ static int selinux_capset_check(struct t
static void selinux_capset_set(struct task_struct *target, kernel_cap_t *effective,
kernel_cap_t *inheritable, kernel_cap_t *permitted)
{
- int error;
-
- error = task_has_perm(current, target, PROCESS__SETCAP);
- if (error)
- return;
-
secondary_ops->capset_set(target, effective, inheritable, permitted);
}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-12-15 23:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-12-15 19:48 Serge E. Hallyn
2004-12-15 20:34 ` Stephen Smalley
2004-12-15 23:22 ` Serge E. Hallyn [this message]
2004-12-15 23:47 ` Chris Wright
2004-12-16 16:16 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2004-12-15 23:26 ` Chris Wright
2005-01-04 16:27 [PATCH] properly " Serge E. Hallyn
2005-01-04 20:15 ` Chris Wright
2005-01-04 21:55 ` Stephen Smalley
2005-01-04 22:03 ` Alan Cox
2005-01-04 23:23 ` Chris Wright
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20041215232222.GD888@IBM-BWN8ZTBWA01.austin.ibm.com \
--to=serue@us.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=chrisw@osdl.org \
--cc=jmorris@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sds@epoch.ncsc.mil \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®