On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 5:53 AM Roberto Sassu roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com wrote:
On Thu, 2023-01-12 at 12:45 -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:
On Thu, 2023-01-12 at 13:36 +0100, Roberto Sassu wrote:
On Wed, 2023-01-11 at 09:25 -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 4:31 AM Roberto Sassu roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com wrote:
On Fri, 2023-01-06 at 16:14 -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 9:10 AM Roberto Sassu roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com wrote: > From: Roberto Sassu roberto.sassu@huawei.com > > Commit 98de59bfe4b2f ("take calculation of final prot in > security_mmap_file() into a helper") moved the code to update prot with the > actual protection flags to be granted to the requestor by the kernel to a > helper called mmap_prot(). However, the patch didn't update the argument > passed to ima_file_mmap(), making it receive the requested prot instead of > the final computed prot. > > A possible consequence is that files mmapped as executable might not be > measured/appraised if PROT_EXEC is not requested but subsequently added in > the final prot. > > Replace prot with mmap_prot(file, prot) as the second argument of > ima_file_mmap() to restore the original behavior. > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org > Fixes: 98de59bfe4b2 ("take calculation of final prot in security_mmap_file() into a helper") > Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu roberto.sassu@huawei.com > --- > security/security.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/security/security.c b/security/security.c > index d1571900a8c7..0d2359d588a1 100644 > --- a/security/security.c > +++ b/security/security.c > @@ -1666,7 +1666,7 @@ int security_mmap_file(struct file *file, unsigned long prot, > mmap_prot(file, prot), flags); > if (ret) > return ret; > - return ima_file_mmap(file, prot); > + return ima_file_mmap(file, mmap_prot(file, prot)); > }
This seems like a reasonable fix, although as the original commit is ~10 years old at this point I am a little concerned about the impact this might have on IMA. Mimi, what do you think?
So ... where do we stand on this patch, Mimi, Roberto? I stand by my original comment, but I would want to see an ACK from Mimi at the very least before merging this upstream. If this isn't ACK-able, do we have a plan to resolve this soon?