Re: [PATCH] lsm: security_task_getsecid_subj() -> security_current_getsecid_subj()

["Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>]

On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 06:12:19PM -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 5:52 PM Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 3:17 PM Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > The security_task_getsecid_subj() LSM hook invites misuse by allowing
> > > callers to specify a task even though the hook is only safe when the
> > > current task is referenced.  Fix this by removing the task_struct
> > > argument to the hook, requiring LSM implementations to use the
> > > current task.  While we are changing the hook declaration we also
> > > rename the function to security_current_getsecid_subj() in an effort
> > > to reinforce that the hook captures the subjective credentials of the
> > > current task and not an arbitrary task on the system.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
> > > ---
> > >  include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h         |    3 +--
> > >  include/linux/lsm_hooks.h             |    8 +++-----
> > >  include/linux/security.h              |    4 ++--
> > >  kernel/audit.c                        |    4 ++--
> > >  kernel/auditfilter.c                  |    3 +--
> > >  kernel/auditsc.c                      |   10 +++++++++-
> > >  net/netlabel/netlabel_unlabeled.c     |    2 +-
> > >  net/netlabel/netlabel_user.h          |    2 +-
> > >  security/apparmor/lsm.c               |   13 ++++++++++---
> > >  security/integrity/ima/ima_appraise.c |    2 +-
> > >  security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c     |   14 +++++++-------
> > >  security/security.c                   |    6 +++---
> > >  security/selinux/hooks.c              |   19 +++----------------
> > >  security/smack/smack.h                |   16 ----------------
> > >  security/smack/smack_lsm.c            |    9 ++++-----
> > >  15 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 67 deletions(-)
> >
> > I never saw any comments, positive or negative, on this patch so I'll
> > plan on merging it early next week.  If you've got objections, now is
> > the time to speak up.
> 
> I just merged this patch, with the AppArmor tweak suggested by Serge,
> into selinux/next.  Thanks everyone.

Thanks, Paul.

-serge