lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Feb]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/3] Teach SELinux about anonymous inodes
From
Date
On 2/14/20 1:02 PM, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> It shouldn't fire for non-anon inodes because on a (non-anon) file
> creation, security_transition_sid() is passed the parent directory SID
> as the second argument and we only assign task SIDs to /proc/pid
> directories, which don't support (userspace) file creation anyway.
>
> However, in the absence of a matching type_transition rule, we'll end up
> defaulting to the task SID on the anon inode, and without a separate
> class we won't be able to distinguish it from a /proc/pid inode.  So
> that might justify a separate anoninode or similar class.
>
> This however reminded me that for the context_inode case, we not only
> want to inherit the SID but also the sclass from the context_inode. That
> is so that anon inodes created via device node ioctls inherit the same
> SID/class pair as the device node and a single allowx rule can govern
> all ioctl commands on that device.

At least that's the way our patch worked with the /dev/kvm example.
However, if we are introducing a separate anoninode class for the
type_transition case, maybe we should apply that to all anon inodes
regardless of how they are labeled (based on context_inode or
transition) and then we'd need to write two allowx rules, one for ioctls
on the original device node and one for those on anon inodes created
from it. Not sure how Android wants to handle that as the original
developer and primary user of SELinux ioctl whitelisting.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-02-14 19:11    [W:0.051 / U:0.048 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site