From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751228AbVHYRG3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Aug 2005 13:06:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751223AbVHYRG3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Aug 2005 13:06:29 -0400 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:5806 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751207AbVHYRG2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Aug 2005 13:06:28 -0400 Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 10:06:17 -0700 From: Chris Wright To: Stephen Smalley Cc: Chris Wright , Greg Kroah , Kurt Garloff , linux-security-module@wirex.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] Remove unnecesary capability hooks in rootplug. Message-ID: <20050825170617.GW7762@shell0.pdx.osdl.net> References: <20050825012028.720597000@localhost.localdomain> <20050825012150.490797000@localhost.localdomain> <20050825143807.GA8590@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> <1124982836.3873.78.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> <20050825162101.GU7762@shell0.pdx.osdl.net> <1124987036.3873.106.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1124987036.3873.106.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Stephen Smalley (sds@epoch.ncsc.mil) wrote: > On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 09:21 -0700, Chris Wright wrote: > > * Stephen Smalley (sds@epoch.ncsc.mil) wrote: > > > On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 09:38 -0500, serue@us.ibm.com wrote: > > > > Ok, with the attached patch SELinux seems to work correctly. You'll > > > > probably want to make it a little prettier :) Note I have NOT ran the > > > > ltp tests for correctness. I'll do some performance runs, though > > > > unfortunately can't do so on ppc right now. > > > > > > Note that the selinux tests there _only_ test the SELinux checking. So > > > if these changes interfere with proper stacking of SELinux with > > > capabilities, that won't show up there. > > > > Sorry, I'm not parsing that? > > e.g. if secondary_ops->capable is null, the SELinux tests aren't going > to show that, because they will still see that the SELinux permission > checks are working correctly. They only test failure/success for the > SELinux permission checks, not for the capability checks, so if you > unhook capabilities, they won't notice. Yes, I see. I thought the tests you were referring to were "if (secondary_ops->capable)" not LTP tests. Capability is still a module that can be loaded (or built-in). So the only issue is it's security_ops is now NULL where it was a trivial return 0 function. Aside from the oversight Serge fixed, I don't think there's any issue. thanks, -chris