On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Paul Moore [off-list ref] wrote:

On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 8:03 PM, Paul Moore [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 6:25 PM, Kees Cook [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

The SELinux bprm_secureexec hook can be merged with the bprm_set_creds
hook since it's dealing with the same information, and all of the details
are finalized during the first call to the bprm_set_creds hook via
prepare_binprm() (subsequent calls due to binfmt_script, etc, are ignored
via bprm->called_set_creds).

Here, the test can just happen at the end of the bprm_set_creds hook,
and the bprm_secureexec hook can be dropped.

Cc: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Cc: Stephen Smalley <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <redacted>
---
 security/selinux/hooks.c | 24 +++++-------------------
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)

This seems reasonable in the context of the other changes.

Stephen just posted an AT_SECURE test for the selinux-testsuite on the
SELinux mailing list, it would be nice to ensure that this patchset
doesn't run afoul of that.

Quick follow-up: I just merged Stephen's test into the test suite:

* https://github.com/SELinuxProject/selinux-testsuite

Is there a quick how-to on just running the AT_SECURE test?

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in
the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html