Re: [PATCH 3/3] mlsxfrm: Various fixes

[Paul Moore <paul.moore@hp.com>]

Venkat Yekkirala wrote:
> +/*
> + * security_sid_compare() - compares two given sid contexts.
> + * Returns 1 if they are equal, 0 otherwise.
> + */
> +int security_sid_compare(u32 sid1, u32 sid2)
> +{
> +	struct context *context1;
> +	struct context *context2;
> +	int rc;
> +
> +	if (!ss_initialized)
> +		return 1;
> +
> +	if (sid1 == sid2)
> +		return 1;
> +	else if (sid1 > SECINITSID_NUM && sid2 > SECINITSID_NUM)
> +		return 0;
> +
> +	/* explicit comparison in order */
> +
> +	POLICY_RDLOCK;
> +	context1 = sidtab_search(&sidtab, sid1);
> +	if (!context1) {
> +		printk(KERN_ERR "security_sid_compare:  unrecognized SID "
> +		       "%u\n", sid1);
> +		rc = 0;
> +		goto out_unlock;
> +	}
> +
> +	context2 = sidtab_search(&sidtab, sid2);
> +	if (!context2) {
> +		printk(KERN_ERR "security_sid_compare:  unrecognized SID "
> +		       "%u\n", sid2);
> +		rc = 0;
> +		goto out_unlock;
> +	}
> +
> +	rc = context_cmp(context1, context2);
> +
> +out_unlock:
> +	POLICY_RDUNLOCK;
> +	return rc;
> +}

I understand wanting a generic LSM interface to do secid token comparisons, but
in the SELinux implementation of this function I think we can get away with only
a simple "sid1 == sid2" since the security server shouldn't be creating
duplicate SID/secid values for identical contexts, I think.  Did you run into
something in testing that would indicate otherwise?

-- 
paul moore
linux security @ hp