Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Sun, 13 Dec 2020 16:29:41 +0000
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        Stephen Smalley <stephen.smalley.work@gmail.com>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
Cc:     Stephen Brennan <stephen.s.brennan@oracle.com>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
        James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
        Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>,
        Eric Paris <eparis@parisplace.org>, selinux@vger.kernel.org,
        Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] proc: Allow pid_revalidate() during LOOKUP_RCU
Message-ID: <20201213162941.GG2443@casper.infradead.org>
References: <20201204000212.773032-1-stephen.s.brennan@oracle.com>
 <20201212205522.GF2443@casper.infradead.org>
 <877dpln5uf.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <877dpln5uf.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Dec 13, 2020 at 08:22:32AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> writes:
> 
> > On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 04:02:12PM -0800, Stephen Brennan wrote:
> >> -void pid_update_inode(struct task_struct *task, struct inode *inode)
> >> +static int do_pid_update_inode(struct task_struct *task, struct inode *inode,
> >> +			       unsigned int flags)
> >
> > I'm really nitpicking here, but this function only _updates_ the inode
> > if flags says it should.  So I was thinking something like this
> > (compile tested only).
> >
> > I'd really appreocate feedback from someone like Casey or Stephen on
> > what they need for their security modules.
> 
> Just so we don't have security module questions confusing things
> can we please make this a 2 patch series?  With the first
> patch removing security_task_to_inode?
> 
> The justification for the removal is that all security_task_to_inode
> appears to care about is the file type bits in inode->i_mode.  Something
> that never changes.  Having this in a separate patch would make that
> logical change easier to verify.

I don't think that's right, which is why I keep asking Stephen & Casey
for their thoughts.  For example,

 * Sets the smack pointer in the inode security blob
 */
static void smack_task_to_inode(struct task_struct *p, struct inode *inode)
{
        struct inode_smack *isp = smack_inode(inode);
        struct smack_known *skp = smk_of_task_struct(p);

        isp->smk_inode = skp;
        isp->smk_flags |= SMK_INODE_INSTANT;
}

That seems to do rather more than checking the file type bits.