On 6/6/2019 10:18 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:

On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 8:06 AM David Howells [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Andy Lutomirski [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

So that the LSM can see the credentials of the last process to do an fput()
on a file object when the file object is being dismantled, do the following
steps:

I still maintain that this is a giant design error.

Yes, I know.  This was primarily a post so that Greg could play with the USB
notifications stuff I added.  The LSM support isn't resolved and is unchanged.

quoted

Can someone at least come up with a single valid use case that isn't
entirely full of bugs?

"Entirely full of bugs"?

I can say "hey, I have this policy that the person who triggered an
event needs such-and-such permission, otherwise the event gets
suppressed".  But this isn't a full use case, and it's buggy.  It's
not a full use case because I haven't specified what my actual goal is
and why this particular policy achieves my goals.  And it's entirely
full of bugs because, as this patch so nicely illustrates, it's not
well defined who triggered the event.  For example, if I exec a setuid
process, who triggers the close?  What if I send the fd to systemd
over a socket and immediately close my copy before systemd gets (and
ignores) the message?  Or if I send it to Wayland, or to any other
process?

A file is closed when everyone is done with it.  Trying to figure out
who the last intentional user of the file was seems little better than
random guessing.  Defining a security policy based on it seems like a
poor idea.

quoted

How would you propose I deal with Casey's requirement?  I'm getting the
feeling you're going to nak it if I try to fulfil that and he's going to nak
it if I don't.

Casey, I think you need to state your requirement in a way that's well
defined, and I think you need to make a compelling case that your
requirement is indeed worth dictating the design of parts of the
kernel outside LSM.

Err, no, I don't believe so. There's a whole lot more
going on in this discussion than just what's going on
within the LSMs. Using examples from the LSMs makes it
easier, because their policies are better defined than
the "legacy" policies are. The most important part of the
discussion is about ensuring that the event mechanism
doesn't circumvent the legacy policies. Yes, I understand
that you don't know what that means, or has to do with
anything.