Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
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 <dhowells@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20190306235913.6631-3-matthewgarrett@google.com>
References: <20190306235913.6631-3-matthewgarrett@google.com> <20190306235913.6631-1-matthewgarrett@google.com>
To:     Matthew Garrett <matthewgarrett@google.com>
Cc:     dhowells@redhat.com, jmorris@namei.org,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/27] Add a SysRq option to lift kernel lockdown
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <15832.1551974371.1@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date:   Thu, 07 Mar 2019 15:59:31 +0000
Message-ID: <15833.1551974371@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Matthew Garrett <matthewgarrett@google.com> wrote:

> +		/* Ban synthetic events from some sysrq functionality */
> +		if ((from == SYSRQ_FROM_PROC || from == SYSRQ_FROM_SYNTHETIC) &&
> +		    op_p->enable_mask & SYSRQ_DISABLE_USERSPACE)
> +			printk("This sysrq operation is disabled from userspace.\n");
>  		/*
>  		 * Should we check for enabled operations (/proc/sysrq-trigger
>  		 * should not) and is the invoked operation enabled?
>  		 */
> -		if (!check_mask || sysrq_on_mask(op_p->enable_mask)) {
> +		if (from == SYSRQ_FROM_KERNEL || sysrq_on_mask(op_p->enable_mask)) {

There's some missing logic here.  Probably an else is missing, but it seems
more than that.

David