On 07/08/2015 09:37 AM, Stephen Smalley wrote: > On 07/08/2015 06:25 AM, Paul Osmialowski wrote: >> Originates from: >> >> https://github.com/lmctl/kdbus.git (branch: kdbus-lsm-v4.for-systemd-v212) >> commit: aa0885489d19be92fa41c6f0a71df28763228a40 >> >> Signed-off-by: Karol Lewandowski <k.lewando...@samsung.com> >> Signed-off-by: Paul Osmialowski <p.osmialo...@samsung.com> >> --- >> ipc/kdbus/bus.c | 12 ++++++++++- >> ipc/kdbus/bus.h | 3 +++ >> ipc/kdbus/connection.c | 54 >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> ipc/kdbus/connection.h | 4 ++++ >> ipc/kdbus/domain.c | 9 ++++++++- >> ipc/kdbus/domain.h | 2 ++ >> ipc/kdbus/endpoint.c | 11 ++++++++++ >> ipc/kdbus/names.c | 11 ++++++++++ >> ipc/kdbus/queue.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++---------- >> 9 files changed, 124 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) >> >> > >> diff --git a/ipc/kdbus/connection.c b/ipc/kdbus/connection.c >> index 9993753..b85cdc7 100644 >> --- a/ipc/kdbus/connection.c >> +++ b/ipc/kdbus/connection.c >> @@ -31,6 +31,7 @@ >> #include <linux/slab.h> >> #include <linux/syscalls.h> >> #include <linux/uio.h> >> +#include <linux/security.h> >> >> #include "bus.h" >> #include "connection.h" >> @@ -73,6 +74,8 @@ static struct kdbus_conn *kdbus_conn_new(struct kdbus_ep >> *ep, bool privileged, >> bool is_activator; >> bool is_monitor; >> struct kvec kvec; >> + u32 sid, len; >> + char *label; >> int ret; >> >> struct { >> @@ -222,6 +225,14 @@ static struct kdbus_conn *kdbus_conn_new(struct >> kdbus_ep *ep, bool privileged, >> } >> } >> >> + security_task_getsecid(current, &sid); >> + security_secid_to_secctx(sid, &label, &len); >> + ret = security_kdbus_connect(conn, label, len); >> + if (ret) { >> + ret = -EPERM; >> + goto exit_unref; >> + } > > This seems convoluted and expensive. If you always want the label of > the current task here, then why not just have security_kdbus_connect() > internally extract the label of the current task?
Furthermore, why do we need a separate security field and copy of the current label in the conn->security, when we already have conn->cred->security available to us? I don't think we need new security fields unless we are going to assign some kind of object labeling to these structures separate from their cred, and offhand I don't see why we would do that. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
