Stephen Smalley [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
--- a/security/selinux/hooks.c
+++ b/security/selinux/hooks.c
@@ -6560,6 +6560,7 @@ static int selinux_key_permission(key_ref_t key_ref,
{
struct key *key;
struct key_security_struct *ksec;
+ unsigned oldstyle_perm;
u32 sid;
/* if no specific permissions are requested, we skip the@@ -6568,13 +6569,26 @@ static int selinux_key_permission(key_ref_t key_ref,
if (perm == 0)
return 0;
+ oldstyle_perm = perm & (KEY_NEED_VIEW | KEY_NEED_READ | KEY_NEED_WRITE
|
+ KEY_NEED_SEARCH | KEY_NEED_LINK);
+ if (perm & KEY_NEED_SETSEC)
+ oldstyle_perm |= OLD_KEY_NEED_SETATTR;
+ if (perm & KEY_NEED_INVAL)
+ oldstyle_perm |= KEY_NEED_SEARCH;
+ if (perm & KEY_NEED_REVOKE && !(perm & OLD_KEY_NEED_SETATTR))
+ oldstyle_perm |= KEY_NEED_WRITE;
+ if (perm & KEY_NEED_JOIN)
+ oldstyle_perm |= KEY_NEED_SEARCH;
+ if (perm & KEY_NEED_CLEAR)
+ oldstyle_perm |= KEY_NEED_WRITE;
+
sid = cred_sid(cred);
key = key_ref_to_ptr(key_ref);
ksec = key->security;
return avc_has_perm(&selinux_state,
- sid, ksec->sid, SECCLASS_KEY, perm, NULL);
+ sid, ksec->sid, SECCLASS_KEY, oldstyle_perm, NULL);
This might be ok temporarily for compatibility but we'll want to ultimately
define the new permissions in SELinux and switch over to using them if a new
policy capability bit is set to indicate that the policy supports them. We
should probably decouple the SELinux permission bits from the KEY_NEED_*
values and explicitly map them all at the same time.
Sounds reasonable. I should probably detach the first two ACL patches from
the set and push them separately.
David