Re: [PATCH (for 3.15) 3/5] AppArmor: Handle the rename flags.

From: John Johansen
Date: Mon May 19 2014 - 08:28:34 EST


On 05/12/2014 06:24 AM, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>>From 819e94ae3a6d9235196d137a39afa4e0bbd79770 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 21:54:05 +0900
> Subject: [PATCH (for 3.15) 3/5] AppArmor: Handle the rename flags.
>
> For AppArmor, the RENAME_EXCHANGE flag means "check permissions with
> reversed arguments" and "distinguish condition of source and target".
> Future patches will stop re-calculating pathnames.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

This isn't quite right. For apparmor at this point these paths need to
be still treated like they are separate. The second aa_path_perm, is
checking the permission to move old_inode to new_path.

see below

I've added an updated patch below

> ---
> security/apparmor/lsm.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++--
> 1 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/security/apparmor/lsm.c b/security/apparmor/lsm.c
> index c0b4366..9f21296 100644
> --- a/security/apparmor/lsm.c
> +++ b/security/apparmor/lsm.c
> @@ -331,7 +331,14 @@ static int apparmor_path_rename(struct path *old_dir, struct dentry *old_dentry,
> struct path_cond cond = { old_dentry->d_inode->i_uid,
> old_dentry->d_inode->i_mode
> };
> + struct path_cond new_cond = cond;
>
> + if (flags & RENAME_EXCHANGE) {
> + /* Cross rename requires both inodes to exist. */
> + new_cond.uid = new_dentry->d_inode->i_uid;
> + new_cond.mode = new_dentry->d_inode->i_mode;
> + }
> +retry:
> error = aa_path_perm(OP_RENAME_SRC, profile, &old_path, 0,
> MAY_READ | AA_MAY_META_READ | MAY_WRITE |
> AA_MAY_META_WRITE | AA_MAY_DELETE,
> @@ -339,7 +346,18 @@ static int apparmor_path_rename(struct path *old_dir, struct dentry *old_dentry,
> if (!error)
> error = aa_path_perm(OP_RENAME_DEST, profile, &new_path,
> 0, MAY_WRITE | AA_MAY_META_WRITE |
> - AA_MAY_CREATE, &cond);
> + AA_MAY_CREATE, &new_cond);
This isn't new_cond because its the permission to move old_inode to new_path

> + if (!error && (flags & RENAME_EXCHANGE)) {
> + struct path tmp_path = new_path;
> + struct path_cond tmp_cond = new_cond;
> +
> + new_path = old_path;
> + old_path = tmp_path;
> + new_cond = cond;
> + cond = tmp_cond;
> + flags = 0;
> + goto retry;
> + }
>
> }
> return error;
>