On Thu, 2019-12-12 at 18:06 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 03:50:07PM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Sun, 2019-10-06 at 19:21 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
From: Jann Horn jannh@google.com
commit 3675f052b43ba51b99b85b073c7070e083f3e6fb upstream.
[...]
--- a/security/smack/smack_lsm.c +++ b/security/smack/smack_lsm.c @@ -949,7 +949,8 @@ static int smack_bprm_set_creds(struct l if (rc != 0) return rc;
- } else if (bprm->unsafe)
- }
- if (bprm->unsafe & ~LSM_UNSAFE_PTRACE)
I think this needs to be ~(LSM_UNSAFE_PTRACE | LSM_UNSAFE_PTRACE_CAP) for 4.9 and older branches.
Why? Where did the LSM_UNSAFE_PTRACE_CAP requirement come from (or really, go away?)
LSM_UNSAFE_PTRACE_CAP was combined with LSM_UNSAFE_PTRACE by:
commit 9227dd2a84a765fcfef1677ff17de0958b192eda Author: Eric W. Biederman ebiederm@xmission.com Date: Mon Jan 23 17:26:31 2017 +1300
exec: Remove LSM_UNSAFE_PTRACE_CAP
If I understand the patch ("Smack: Dont ignore other bprm->unsafe flags …") correctly, this function should have one if-statement handling LSM_UNSAFE_PTRACE (and LSM_UNSAFE_PTRACE_CAP if it exists), followed by another if-statement handling all other flags in bprm->unsafe.
Ben.