Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/8] init security for init task

[Kylene Jo Hall <kjhall@us.ibm.com>]

On Thu, 2006-08-17 at 16:11 -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-08-17 at 12:53 -0700, Kylene Jo Hall wrote:
> > Added a LSM hook to initialize the security pointer of the init task.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@us.ibm.com> 
> > Signed-off-by: Kylene Hall <kjhall@us.ibm.com>
> > ---
> >  include/linux/security.h |   17 +++++++++++++++++
> >  init/main.c              |    1 +
> >  security/dummy.c         |    6 ++++++
> >  3 files changed, 24 insertions(+)
> > 
> > --- linux-2.6.18-rc3/include/linux/security.h	2006-07-30 01:15:36.000000000 -0500
> > +++ linux-2.6.18-rc3-working/include/linux/security.h	2006-08-08 13:05:48.000000000 -0500
> > @@ -516,6 +516,12 @@ struct swap_info_struct;
> >   * @task_free_security:
> >   *	@p contains the task_struct for process.
> >   *	Deallocate and clear the p->security field.
> > + * @task_init_alloc_security:
> > + *	@p contains the task_struct for init process.
> > + *	Allocate and attach a security structure to the p->security field for
> > + *	the init task. The security field is initialized to NULL when the task
> > + *	structure is allocated.
> > + *	Return 0 if operation was successful.
> >   * @task_setuid:
> >   *	Check permission before setting one or more of the user identity
> >   *	attributes of the current process.  The @flags parameter indicates
> > @@ -1220,6 +1226,7 @@ struct security_operations {
> >  	int (*task_create) (unsigned long clone_flags);
> >  	int (*task_alloc_security) (struct task_struct * p);
> >  	void (*task_free_security) (struct task_struct * p);
> > +	int (*task_init_alloc_security) (struct task_struct * p);
> >  	int (*task_setuid) (uid_t id0, uid_t id1, uid_t id2, int flags);
> >  	int (*task_post_setuid) (uid_t old_ruid /* or fsuid */ ,
> >  				 uid_t old_euid, uid_t old_suid, int flags);
> > @@ -1816,6 +1823,11 @@ static inline void security_task_free (s
> >  	security_ops->task_free_security (p);
> >  }
> >  
> > +static inline int security_task_init_alloc (struct task_struct *p)
> > +{
> > +	return security_ops->task_init_alloc_security (p);
> > +}
> > +
> >  static inline int security_task_setuid (uid_t id0, uid_t id1, uid_t id2,
> >  					int flags)
> >  {
> > @@ -2479,6 +2491,11 @@ static inline int security_task_alloc (s
> >  static inline void security_task_free (struct task_struct *p)
> >  { }
> >  
> > +static inline int security_task_init_alloc (struct task_struct *p)
> > +{
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> >  static inline int security_task_setuid (uid_t id0, uid_t id1, uid_t id2,
> >  					int flags)
> >  {
> > --- linux-2.6.18-rc3/security/dummy.c	2006-07-30 01:15:36.000000000 -0500
> > +++ linux-2.6.18-rc3-working/security/dummy.c	2006-08-04 13:28:34.000000000 -0500
> > @@ -474,6 +474,11 @@ static void dummy_task_free_security (st
> >  	return;
> >  }
> >  
> > +static int dummy_task_init_alloc_security (struct task_struct *p)
> > +{
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> >  static int dummy_task_setuid (uid_t id0, uid_t id1, uid_t id2, int flags)
> >  {
> >  	return 0;
> > @@ -982,6 +987,7 @@ void security_fixup_ops (struct security
> >  	set_to_dummy_if_null(ops, task_create);
> >  	set_to_dummy_if_null(ops, task_alloc_security);
> >  	set_to_dummy_if_null(ops, task_free_security);
> > +	set_to_dummy_if_null(ops, task_init_alloc_security);
> >  	set_to_dummy_if_null(ops, task_setuid);
> >  	set_to_dummy_if_null(ops, task_post_setuid);
> >  	set_to_dummy_if_null(ops, task_setgid);
> > --- linux-2.6.18-rc3/init/main.c	2006-07-30 01:15:36.000000000 -0500
> > +++ linux-2.6.18-rc3-working/init/main.c	2006-08-04 13:26:12.000000000 -0500
> > @@ -698,6 +698,7 @@ static int init(void * unused)
> >  	 * can be found.
> >  	 */
> >  	child_reaper = current;
> > +	security_task_init_alloc(current);
> >  
> >  	smp_prepare_cpus(max_cpus);
> >  
> 
> Why isn't this handled by upon your module's security initcall?
> 
Per your suggestion.  I did some more digging and couldn't justify to my
reason for thinking it was necessary.  I tried some different stuff in
our init and this hook is no longer necessary.  This patch will be
dropped from future patchsets and the main patch will contain the
necessary update to remove the need for this.

Thanks,
Kylie


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/