Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-165762-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240429114636.123395-1-fuzhen5@huawei.com> <CAHC9VhTCFOCE0E-en3HnNkPVRumzWRPcrJMF-=dxke53dOv1Gg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHC9VhTCFOCE0E-en3HnNkPVRumzWRPcrJMF-=dxke53dOv1Gg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Date: Wed, 1 May 2024 16:47:37 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhT0=Useuop92s4J9CGNpXa54r4NYnY9DOTnGmoo0hNv5w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] lsm: fix default return value for inode_set(remove)xattr
To: felix <fuzhen5@huawei.com>, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
Cc: casey@schaufler-ca.com, roberto.sassu@huawei.com, stefanb@linux.ibm.com, 
	zohar@linux.ibm.com, kamrankhadijadj@gmail.com, andrii@kernel.org, 
	omosnace@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org, 
	xiujianfeng@huawei.com, wangweiyang2@huawei.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, May 1, 2024 at 12:02=E2=80=AFPM Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> wr=
ote:
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 7:47=E2=80=AFAM felix <fuzhen5@huawei.com> wrote:
> >
> > From: Felix Fu <fuzhen5@huawei.com>
> >
> > The return value of security_inode_set(remove)xattr should
> > be 1. If it return 0, cap_inode_setxattr would not be
> > executed when no lsm exist, which is not what we expected,
> > any user could set some security.* xattr for a file.
> >
> > Before commit 260017f31a8c ("lsm: use default hook return
> > value in call_int_hook()") was approved, this issue would
> > still happened when lsm only include bpf, because bpf_lsm_
> > inode_setxattr return 0 by default which cause cap_inode_set
> > xattr to be not executed.
> >
> > Fixes: 260017f31a8c ("lsm: use default hook return value in call_int_ho=
ok()")
> > Signed-off-by: Felix Fu <fuzhen5@huawei.com>
> > ---
> >  include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h | 4 ++--
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> Adding the LSM list as that is the important list for this patch.

It's also worth noting the discussion below from earlier this year.  I
just spent a little bit of time working on a different solution which
I personally find more acceptable; I'm building a test kernel now,
assuming it works I'll post it as a RFC.

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-security-module/20240129133058.1627971-1-omos=
nace@redhat.com/

--=20
paul-moore.com