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

[Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>]

On 11/20/2021 7:06 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 7:42 PM Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote:
>> On 11/19/2021 2:52 PM, Paul Moore 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.
>> It's OK by me.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
> Thanks Casey.  Are you okay with the AppArmor tweak mentioned by Serge and John?

Yes.