Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751604AbaKFMEA (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Nov 2014 07:04:00 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:43487 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751450AbaKFMDl (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Nov 2014 07:03:41 -0500 Organization: Red Hat UK Ltd. Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United Kingdom. Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903 From: David Howells In-Reply-To: <545A51CB.6070107@tycho.nsa.gov> References: <545A51CB.6070107@tycho.nsa.gov> <20141105154217.2555.578.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <20141105154307.2555.9847.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> To: Stephen Smalley Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org, selinux@tycho.nsa.gov, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] SELinux: Handle opening of a unioned file MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <11462.1415275413.1@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2014 12:03:33 +0000 Message-ID: <11463.1415275413@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Stephen Smalley wrote: > How do we know that this union_isid will bear any relation to the actual > SID assigned to the union inode when it is created? Note that overlayfs *will* have a union inode at this point, but will just not use it for non-directories - so in this case we just use the first branch of the if-statement: + if (inode) { + isec = inode->i_security; + fsec->union_isid = isec->sid; + } ... in which case, I think that we can be fairly sure that we will have the right label. The other two cases are in case there isn't an inode - unionmount, for example. The second case is used (if I understand the flag correctly) if the superblock imposes a single label over all its inodes - so no problem there: + } else if ((sbsec->flags & SE_SBINITIALIZED) && + (sbsec->behavior == SECURITY_FS_USE_MNTPOINT)) { + fsec->union_isid = sbsec->mntpoint_sid; + } ... The third case is the tricky one because we have to try and derive a label. I've copied the code from the inode creation - so unless the policy changes or the parent directory inode changes, I would've thought we'd be okay. > If the union inode does not already exist, when/where does it get created? For overlayfs, union inodes *have* to exist because it's a filesystem and are created at the normal times and in the normal way. They need to exist because otherwise the dentry at that point in the overlay fs would be negative and the VFS wouldn't call into the filesystem. > Also, would be good to create a common helper for use here, by > selinux_dentry_init_security(), selinux_inode_init_security(), and > may_create(). Already some seeming potential for inconsistencies there. Okay, I'll have a look at that. > > + return inode_has_perm(cred, file_inode(file), fsec->union_isid, &ad); > > Something is seriously wrong here; you are passing fsec->union_isid > where we expect a permissions bitmap / access vector. Good point. I need to call avc_has_perm() directly. I don't necessarily have an sclass, though, hmmm... David -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/