Re: [PATCH] security: new security_file_ioctl_compat() hook

[Paul Moore]

On Sat, Dec 23, 2023 at 5:49 AM Tetsuo Handa
<penguin-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 2023/12/23 10:23, Paul Moore wrote:
> >> -       /* RED-PEN how should LSM module know it's handling 32bit? */
> >> -       error = security_file_ioctl(f.file, cmd, arg);
> >> +       error = security_file_ioctl_compat(f.file, cmd, arg);
> >>         if (error)
> >>                 goto out;
> >
> > This is interesting ... if you look at the normal ioctl() syscall
> > definition in the kernel you see 'ioctl(unsigned int fd, unsigned int
> > cmd, unsigned long arg)' and if you look at the compat definition you
> > see 'ioctl(unsigned int fd, unsigned int cmd, compat_ulong_t arg)'.  I
> > was expecting the second parameter, @cmd, to be a long type in the
> > normal definition, but it is an int type in both cases.  It looks like
> > it has been that way long enough that it is correct, but I'm a little
> > lost ...
>
> Since @arg might be a pointer to some struct, @arg needs to use a long type.
> But @cmd can remain 32bits for both 32bits/64bits kernels because @cmd is not
> a pointer, can't it?

I'm not worried about @arg, I'm worried about @cmd, the second
parameter to the syscall.  I was looking at the manpage and it is
specified as an unsigned long, which would be a size mismatch on a
64-bit system, although now that I'm reading further into the manpage
I see that the command is specified as a 32-bit value so an int
shouldn't be a problem.  I'm guessing the unsigned long type persists
from the days before 64-bit systems.

> > I agree that it looks like Smack and TOMOYO should be fine, but I
> > would like to hear from Casey and Tetsuo to confirm.
>
> Fine for TOMOYO part, for TOMOYO treats @cmd as an integer.

Great, thank you.

-- 
paul-moore.com