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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220120214948.3637895-1-smayhew@redhat.com> <20220120214948.3637895-2-smayhew@redhat.com>
 <CAHC9VhT2RhnXtK3aQuDCFUr5qayH25G8HHjRTJzhWM3H41YNog@mail.gmail.com>
 <YfAz0EAim7Q9ifGI@aion.usersys.redhat.com> <CAHC9VhTwXUE9dYBHrkA3Xkr=AgXvcnfSzLLBJ4QqYd4R+kFbbA@mail.gmail.com>
 <YfBGx+M9jQZa80rZ@aion.usersys.redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <YfBGx+M9jQZa80rZ@aion.usersys.redhat.com>
From:   Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Date:   Tue, 25 Jan 2022 17:32:54 -0500
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhRoWbnV-cs2HzmiTEd7_kP914stdVpN9Tm2-6uua2-ELA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/2] selinux: Fix selinux_sb_mnt_opts_compat()
To:     Scott Mayhew <smayhew@redhat.com>
Cc:     selinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 1:51 PM Scott Mayhew <smayhew@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2022, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 12:31 PM Scott Mayhew <smayhew@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 24 Jan 2022, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 4:50 PM Scott Mayhew <smayhew@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > selinux_sb_mnt_opts_compat() is called under the sb_lock spinlock and
> > > > > shouldn't be performing any memory allocations.  Fix this by parsing the
> > > > > sids at the same time we're chopping up the security mount options
> > > > > string and then using the pre-parsed sids when doing the comparison.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fixes: cc274ae7763d ("selinux: fix sleeping function called from invalid context")
> > > > > Fixes: 69c4a42d72eb ("lsm,selinux: add new hook to compare new mount to an existing mount")
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Scott Mayhew <smayhew@redhat.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  security/selinux/hooks.c | 112 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
> > > > >  1 file changed, 76 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > > >         switch (token) {
> > > > >         case Opt_context:
> > > > >                 if (opts->context || opts->defcontext)
> > > > >                         goto err;
> > > > >                 opts->context = s;
> > > > > +               if (preparse_sid) {
> > > > > +                       rc = parse_sid(NULL, s, &sid);
> > > > > +                       if (rc == 0) {
> > > > > +                               opts->context_sid = sid;
> > > > > +                               opts->preparsed |= CONTEXT_MNT;
> > > > > +                       }
> > > > > +               }
> > > >
> > > > Is there a reason why we need a dedicated sid variable as opposed to
> > > > passing opt->context_sid as the parameter?  For example:
> > > >
> > > >   rc = parse_sid(NULL, s, &opts->context_sid);
> > >
> > > We don't need a dedicated sid variable.  Should I make similar changes
> > > in the second patch (get rid of the local sid variable in
> > > selinux_sb_remount() and the *context_sid variables in
> > > selinux_set_mnt_opts())?
> >
> > Yes please, I should have explicitly mentioned that.
>
> Actually, delayed_superblock_init() calls selinux_set_mnt_opts() with
> mnt_opts == NULL, so there would have to be a lot of checks like
>
>         if (opts && opts->fscontext_sid) {
>
> in the later parts of that function, which is kind of clunky.  I can
> still do it if you want though.

I might be misunderstanding your concern, but in
selinux_set_mnt_opts() all of the "opts->XXX" if-conditionals are
protected by being inside an if-statement that checks to ensure "opts"
is not NULL.  Am I missing something?

-- 
paul-moore.com