Re: Commit 13c164b1a186 - regression for LSMs/SELinux?

On Fri, 2020-09-25 at 10:38 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 6:38 AM Ondrej Mosnacek <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 4:16 PM Stephen Smalley
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Up-thread I thought Linus indicated he didn't really want a flag
> > > to
> > > disable pemission checking due to potential abuse (and I agree).
> > 
> > IIUC he was against adding an FMODE flag, while I was rather
> > suggesting a new function parameter (I realize it probably wasn't
> > clear from what I wrote).
> 
> I really would prefer neither.
> 
> Any kind of dynamic behavior that depends on a flag is generally
> worse
> than something that can be statically seen.
> 
> Now, if the flag is _purely_ a constant argument in every single
> user,
> and there's no complex flow through multiple different layers, an
> argument flag is certainly fairly close to just having two different
> functions for two different behaviors.
> 
> But I don't really see much of an advantage to adding a new argument
> to kernel_write() for this - because absolutely *nobody* should ever
> use it apart from this very special autofs case.
> 
> So I'd rather just re-export the old __kernel_write() (or whatever it
> was that broke autofs) that didn't do that particular check. We
> already use it for splice and core dumping.
> 
> autofs isn't that different from those two, and I think the only real
> difference is that autofs is a module. No?

It can be, yes, many distro builds compile it in.

> 
> So I think the fix is as simple as exporting __kernel_write() again -
> and let's just make it a GPL-only export since we really don't want
> anybody to use it - and revert  commit 13c164b1a186 ("autofs: switch
> to kernel_write").

Yes, sorry I missed this initially.

There are a couple of other sanity checks in kern_write() but since
__kern_write() is meant to be for internal use that's not really
an issue IMHO. 

Ian