From: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To: Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>
Cc: selinux@vger.kernel.org, paul@paul-moore.com, will@kernel.org,
neilb@suse.de, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] selinux: fall back to ref-walk upon LSM_AUDIT_DATA_DENTRY too
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 16:11:31 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191122161131.GB26530@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191121145245.8637-2-sds@tycho.nsa.gov>
On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 09:52:45AM -0500, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> commit bda0be7ad994 ("security: make inode_follow_link RCU-walk aware")
> passed down the rcu flag to the SELinux AVC, but failed to adjust the
> test in slow_avc_audit() to also return -ECHILD on LSM_AUDIT_DATA_DENTRY.
> Previously, we only returned -ECHILD if generating an audit record with
> LSM_AUDIT_DATA_INODE since this was only relevant from inode_permission.
> Return -ECHILD on either LSM_AUDIT_DATA_INODE or LSM_AUDIT_DATA_DENTRY.
> LSM_AUDIT_DATA_INODE only requires this handling due to the fact
> that dump_common_audit_data() calls d_find_alias() and collects the
> dname from the result if any.
> Other cases that might require similar treatment in the future are
> LSM_AUDIT_DATA_PATH and LSM_AUDIT_DATA_FILE if any hook that takes
> a path or file is called under RCU-walk.
>
> Fixes: bda0be7ad994 ("security: make inode_follow_link RCU-walk aware")
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>
> ---
> security/selinux/avc.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/security/selinux/avc.c b/security/selinux/avc.c
> index 74c43ebe34bb..f1fa1072230c 100644
> --- a/security/selinux/avc.c
> +++ b/security/selinux/avc.c
> @@ -779,7 +779,8 @@ noinline int slow_avc_audit(struct selinux_state *state,
> * during retry. However this is logically just as if the operation
> * happened a little later.
> */
> - if ((a->type == LSM_AUDIT_DATA_INODE) &&
> + if ((a->type == LSM_AUDIT_DATA_INODE ||
> + a->type == LSM_AUDIT_DATA_DENTRY) &&
> (flags & MAY_NOT_BLOCK))
IDGI, to be honest. Why do we bother with slow path if MAY_NOT_BLOCK has
been given? If we'd run into "there's something to report" case, we
are not on the fastpath anymore. IOW, why not have
audited = avc_audit_required(requested, avd, result, 0, &denied);
if (likely(!audited))
return 0;
if (flags & MAY_NOT_BLOCK)
return -ECHILD;
return slow_avc_audit(state, ssid, tsid, tclass,
requested, audited, denied, result,
a, flags);
in avc_audit() and be done with that?
It's not just whether we *can* collect whatever audit might want; do
we want to try and make an audit-spewing syscall marginally faster?
And "marginally" is all you'll get there, really...
We could do
error = security_inode_follow_link(dentry, inode,
nd->flags & LOOKUP_RCU);
if (unlikely(error)) {
if (error == -ECHILD && !unlazy_walk(nd))
error = security_inode_follow_link(dentry, inode, 0);
if (error)
return ERR_PTR(error);
}
in fs/namei.c:get_link() to slightly reduce the costs; that might or
might not be useful - I'd like to see profiling results first. But
trying to push the actual "spew to audit" into RCU case? What for?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-11-22 16:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-11-21 14:52 [RFC PATCH 1/2] selinux: revert "stop passing MAY_NOT_BLOCK to the AVC upon follow_link" Stephen Smalley
2019-11-21 14:52 ` [RFC PATCH 2/2] selinux: fall back to ref-walk upon LSM_AUDIT_DATA_DENTRY too Stephen Smalley
2019-11-22 0:12 ` Paul Moore
2019-11-22 0:30 ` Paul Moore
2019-11-22 13:37 ` Stephen Smalley
2019-11-22 13:50 ` Stephen Smalley
2019-11-22 14:49 ` Paul Moore
2019-11-22 15:09 ` Stephen Smalley
2019-11-22 17:04 ` Stephen Smalley
2019-11-22 16:11 ` Al Viro [this message]
2019-11-22 16:27 ` Stephen Smalley
2019-12-05 14:20 ` Will Deacon
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20191122161131.GB26530@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
--to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=neilb@suse.de \
--cc=paul@paul-moore.com \
--cc=sds@tycho.nsa.gov \
--cc=selinux@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).