From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from goalie.tycho.ncsc.mil (goalie [144.51.242.250]) by tarius.tycho.ncsc.mil (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s7CJ8D8m015767 for ; Tue, 12 Aug 2014 15:08:14 -0400 Received: by mail-qc0-f171.google.com with SMTP id r5so3183739qcx.2 for ; Tue, 12 Aug 2014 12:08:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Paul Moore To: Andy Lutomirski , Stephen Smalley Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] selinux: Permit bounded transitions under NO_NEW_PRIVS or NOSUID. Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 15:08:14 -0400 Message-ID: <1781230.AAtiyApM3R@sifl> In-Reply-To: References: <1407173809-3477-1-git-send-email-sds@tycho.nsa.gov> <53EA578A.3090907@tycho.nsa.gov> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: SELinux-NSA List-Id: "Security-Enhanced Linux \(SELinux\) mailing list" List-Post: List-Help: On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 11:56:42 AM Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Aug 12, 2014 11:07 AM, "Stephen Smalley" wrote: > > On 08/12/2014 02:01 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Stephen Smalley wrote: > > >> If the callee SID is bounded by the caller SID, then allowing > > >> the transition to occur poses no risk of privilege escalation and we > > >> can therefore safely allow the transition to occur. Add this exemption > > >> for both the case where a transition was explicitly requested by the > > >> application and the case where an automatic transition is defined in > > >> policy. > > > > > > This still wants something like security_bounded_transition_noaudit, > > > right? (Or just a parameter about whether to audit -- there will only > > > be two callers, I think.) > > > > I think generating an audit record is correct in this case; the > > operation would have succeeded if the type were bounded, so it is > > correct and helpful to report this to the audit log for diagnosing > > failures. I think Paul's prior objection was that you could end up with > > an audit record even when the operation succeeded when we allowed the > > transitions on either a bounded transition or dyntransition permission, > > but that is no longer the case. > > Fair enough. Yes, the audit problem is no longer an issue and the comments look good to me. > Does this have any chance of making 3.17? No. That ship has sailed. However, I would still like to see some more Reviewed-by/Tested-by mails before we merge this for 3.18. Andy, based on discussion on this thread and previous threads, I assume you're happy with this patch? -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com