[PATCH v3] lockdown,selinux: fix wrong subject in some SELinux lockdown checks

[Paul Moore]

On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 2:58 PM Dan Williams <dan.j.williams at intel.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 6:53 AM Paul Moore <paul at paul-moore.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 5:09 AM Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace at redhat.com> wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jun 19, 2021 at 12:18 AM Dan Williams <dan.j.williams at intel.com> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 1:51 AM Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace at redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/cxl/mem.c b/drivers/cxl/mem.c
> > > > > index 2acc6173da36..c1747b6555c7 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/cxl/mem.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/cxl/mem.c
> > > > > @@ -568,7 +568,7 @@ static bool cxl_mem_raw_command_allowed(u16 opcode)
> > > > >         if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CXL_MEM_RAW_COMMANDS))
> > > > >                 return false;
> > > > >
> > > > > -       if (security_locked_down(LOCKDOWN_NONE))
> > > > > +       if (security_locked_down(current_cred(), LOCKDOWN_NONE))
> > > >
> > > > Acked-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams at intel.com>
> > > >
> > > > ...however that usage looks wrong. The expectation is that if kernel
> > > > integrity protections are enabled then raw command access should be
> > > > disabled. So I think that should be equivalent to LOCKDOWN_PCI_ACCESS
> > > > in terms of the command capabilities to filter.
> > >
> > > Yes, the LOCKDOWN_NONE seems wrong here... but it's a pre-existing bug
> > > and I didn't want to go down yet another rabbit hole trying to fix it.
> > > I'll look at this again once this patch is settled - it may indeed be
> > > as simple as replacing LOCKDOWN_NONE with LOCKDOWN_PCI_ACCESS.
> >
> > At this point you should be well aware of my distaste for merging
> > patches that have known bugs in them.  Yes, this is a pre-existing
> > condition, but it seems well within the scope of this work to address
> > it as well.
> >
> > This isn't something that is going to get merged while the merge
> > window is open, so at the very least you've got almost two weeks to
> > sort this out - please do that.
>
> Yes, apologies, I should have sent the fix shortly after noticing the
> problem. I'll get the CXL bug fix out of the way so Ondrej can move
> this along.

Thanks Dan.

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com