From 76c9805b28557d0b6d439359350061ed0a9395e3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: YueHaibing <yuehaibing@huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2018 21:18:11 +0800
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] Smack: remove set but not used variable 'root_inode'
Fixes gcc '-Wunused-but-set-variable' warning:
security/smack/smackfs.c: In function 'smk_fill_super':
security/smack/smackfs.c:2856:16: warning:
variable 'root_inode' set but not used [-Wunused-but-set-variable]
Signed-off-by: YueHaibing <yuehaibing@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
---
security/smack/smackfs.c | 3 ---
1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/security/smack/smackfs.c b/security/smack/smackfs.c
index f6482e53d55a..06b517075ec0 100644
--- a/security/smack/smackfs.c
+++ b/security/smack/smackfs.c
@@ -2853,7 +2853,6 @@ static const struct file_operations smk_ptrace_ops = {
static int smk_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, void *data, int silent)
{
int rc;
- struct inode *root_inode;
static const struct tree_descr smack_files[] = {
[SMK_LOAD] = {
@@ -2917,8 +2916,6 @@ static int smk_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, void *data, int silent)
return rc;
}
- root_inode = d_inode(sb->s_root);
-
return 0;
}
From dcb569cf6ac99ca899b8109c128b6ae52477a015 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Casey Schaufler <casey.schaufler@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 16:09:16 -0700
Subject: [PATCH 2/3] Smack: ptrace capability use fixes
This fixes a pair of problems in the Smack ptrace checks
related to checking capabilities. In both cases, as reported
by Lukasz Pawelczyk, the raw capability calls are used rather
than the Smack wrapper that check addition restrictions.
In one case, as reported by Jann Horn, the wrong task is being
checked for capabilities.
Signed-off-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
---
security/smack/smack_lsm.c | 13 ++++++++++---
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/security/smack/smack_lsm.c b/security/smack/smack_lsm.c
index 340fc30ad85d..70d3066e69fe 100644
--- a/security/smack/smack_lsm.c
+++ b/security/smack/smack_lsm.c
@@ -421,6 +421,7 @@ static int smk_ptrace_rule_check(struct task_struct *tracer,
struct smk_audit_info ad, *saip = NULL;
struct task_smack *tsp;
struct smack_known *tracer_known;
+ const struct cred *tracercred;
if ((mode & PTRACE_MODE_NOAUDIT) == 0) {
smk_ad_init(&ad, func, LSM_AUDIT_DATA_TASK);
@@ -429,7 +430,8 @@ static int smk_ptrace_rule_check(struct task_struct *tracer,
}
rcu_read_lock();
- tsp = __task_cred(tracer)->security;
+ tracercred = __task_cred(tracer);
+ tsp = tracercred->security;
tracer_known = smk_of_task(tsp);
if ((mode & PTRACE_MODE_ATTACH) &&
@@ -439,7 +441,7 @@ static int smk_ptrace_rule_check(struct task_struct *tracer,
rc = 0;
else if (smack_ptrace_rule == SMACK_PTRACE_DRACONIAN)
rc = -EACCES;
- else if (capable(CAP_SYS_PTRACE))
+ else if (smack_privileged_cred(CAP_SYS_PTRACE, tracercred))
rc = 0;
else
rc = -EACCES;
@@ -1841,6 +1843,7 @@ static int smack_file_send_sigiotask(struct task_struct *tsk,
{
struct smack_known *skp;
struct smack_known *tkp = smk_of_task(tsk->cred->security);
+ const struct cred *tcred;
struct file *file;
int rc;
struct smk_audit_info ad;
@@ -1854,8 +1857,12 @@ static int smack_file_send_sigiotask(struct task_struct *tsk,
skp = file->f_security;
rc = smk_access(skp, tkp, MAY_DELIVER, NULL);
rc = smk_bu_note("sigiotask", skp, tkp, MAY_DELIVER, rc);
- if (rc != 0 && has_capability(tsk, CAP_MAC_OVERRIDE))
+
+ rcu_read_lock();
+ tcred = __task_cred(tsk);
+ if (rc != 0 && smack_privileged_cred(CAP_MAC_OVERRIDE, tcred))
rc = 0;
+ rcu_read_unlock();
smk_ad_init(&ad, __func__, LSM_AUDIT_DATA_TASK);
smk_ad_setfield_u_tsk(&ad, tsk);
From b1fed3edc82ae0d763d5c24769e4a0193da150c9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2018 17:38:54 -0500
Subject: [PATCH 3/3] Smack: Mark expected switch fall-through
In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
where we are expecting to fall through.
Notice that in this particular case, I replaced "No break" with a
proper "Fall through" annotation, which is what GCC is expecting
to find.
Warning level 2 was used: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=2
Addresses-Coverity-ID: 115051 ("Missing break in switch")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
Signed-off-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
---
security/smack/smack_lsm.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/security/smack/smack_lsm.c b/security/smack/smack_lsm.c
index 70d3066e69fe..2f5485cbf5ca 100644
--- a/security/smack/smack_lsm.c
+++ b/security/smack/smack_lsm.c
@@ -3474,7 +3474,7 @@ static void smack_d_instantiate(struct dentry *opt_dentry, struct inode *inode)
*/
final = &smack_known_star;
/*
- * No break.
+ * Fall through.
*
* If a smack value has been set we want to use it,
* but since tmpfs isn't giving us the opportunity