kernel: selinux: policy selectable handling of unknown classes and perms

Allow policy to select, in much the same way as it selects MLS support, how the kernel should handle access decisions which contain either unknown classes or unknown permissions in known classes. The three choices are

0 - Deny unknown security access. (default)
2 - reject loading policy if it does not contain all definitions 4 - allow unknown security access

The policy's choice is exported (with a value of 0,2,4) to userspace through /selinuxfs/handle_unknown

Signed-off-by Eric Paris <[email protected]>

---

To test I added a new class and with two permissions into the kernel. I then changed security_mmap_file to make use of these new classes and permissions because i knew how to easily manipulate that from usersapce from the mmap_zero patch. Basically

if (addr == 0)
check permission for 'test_class'/'test_perm2'
printk(success/fail)
if (addr < mmap_min_addr)
check permission for 'test_class'/'test_perm1'
printk(success/fail)

I wrote a simple program in userspace which called mmap with MAP_FIXED at 0 and 4096 so I would be able to exercise everything I needed.

I then tested with policy having no classes or perms defined and with a policy which had the class but only one of the 2 perms defined. In all cases I got the expected behavior.

REJECT refused to load the policy because of either the missing class and the missing perm

DENY/default refused to let me mmap anything at a low address when neither was defined. Adding policy to allow test_class/test_perm1 meant I could mmap the page a 4096 but still denied the mmap 0.

ALLOW allowed the mmap at both 0 and 4096 with any policy.

 security/selinux/include/security.h |    2 +
 security/selinux/selinuxfs.c        |   20 ++++++++
 security/selinux/ss/policydb.c      |    8 +++
 security/selinux/ss/policydb.h      |   10 ++++
 security/selinux/ss/services.c      |   84 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
 5 files changed, 115 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

security/selinux/include/security.h +2 -0

index 83bdd4d..99b3e24 100644
@@ -90,6 +90,8 @@ int security_sid_mls_copy(u32 sid, u32 mls_sid, u32 *new_sid);
 
 int security_get_classes(char ***classes, int *nclasses);
 int security_get_permissions(char *class, char ***perms, int *nperms);
+int security_get_handle_unknown(void);
+char *security_get_handle_unknown_txt(void);
 
 #define SECURITY_FS_USE_XATTR		1 /* use xattr */
 #define SECURITY_FS_USE_TRANS		2 /* use transition SIDs, e.g. devpts/tmpfs */

security/selinux/selinuxfs.c +16 -0

index c9e92da..f7d1bfa 100644
@@ -103,6 +103,7 @@ enum sel_inos {
 	SEL_MEMBER,	/* compute polyinstantiation membership decision */
 	SEL_CHECKREQPROT, /* check requested protection, not kernel-applied one */
 	SEL_COMPAT_NET,	/* whether to use old compat network packet controls */
+	SEL_HANDLE_UNKNOWN, /* export unknown handling to userspace */
 	SEL_INO_NEXT,	/* The next inode number to use */
 };
 

@@ -177,6 +178,21 @@ static const struct file_operations sel_enforce_ops = {
 	.write		= sel_write_enforce,
 };
 
+static ssize_t sel_read_handle_unknown(struct file *filp, char __user *buf,
+					size_t count, loff_t *ppos)
+{
+	char tmpbuf[TMPBUFLEN];
+	ssize_t length;
+	int handle_unknown = security_get_handle_unknown();
+
+	length = scnprintf(tmpbuf, TMPBUFLEN, "%d", handle_unknown);
+	return simple_read_from_buffer(buf, count, ppos, tmpbuf, length);
+}
+
+static const struct file_operations sel_handle_unknown_ops = {
+	.read		= sel_read_handle_unknown,
+};
+
 #ifdef CONFIG_SECURITY_SELINUX_DISABLE
 static ssize_t sel_write_disable(struct file * file, const char __user * buf,
 				 size_t count, loff_t *ppos)

security/selinux/selinuxfs.c +2 -0

+
 	ret = sel_make_bools();
 	if (ret) {
 		length = ret;

@@ -1575,6 +1594,7 @@ static int sel_fill_super(struct super_block * sb, void * data, int silent)
 		[SEL_MEMBER] = {"member", &transaction_ops, S_IRUGO|S_IWUGO},
 		[SEL_CHECKREQPROT] = {"checkreqprot", &sel_checkreqprot_ops, S_IRUGO|S_IWUSR},
 		[SEL_COMPAT_NET] = {"compat_net", &sel_compat_net_ops, S_IRUGO|S_IWUSR},
+		[SEL_HANDLE_UNKNOWN] = {"handle_unknown", &sel_handle_unknown_ops, S_IRUGO|S_IWUSR},
 		/* last one */ {""}
 	};
 	ret = simple_fill_super(sb, SELINUX_MAGIC, selinux_files);

security/selinux/ss/policydb.c +8 -0

index f05f97a..588dcfd 100644
@@ -677,6 +677,8 @@ void policydb_destroy(struct policydb *p)
 	}
 	kfree(p->type_attr_map);
 
+	kfree(p->undefined_perms);
+
 	return;
 }
 

@@ -1530,6 +1532,12 @@ int policydb_read(struct policydb *p, void *fp)
 			goto bad;
 		}
 	}
+	p->handle_unknown = le32_to_cpu(buf[1]) & POLICYDB_CONFIG_UNKNOWN_MASK;
+
+	if (p->handle_unknown > ALLOW_UNKNOWN) {
+		printk(KERN_ERR "selinux: invalid options for handle_unknown\n");
+		goto bad;
+	}
 
 	info = policydb_lookup_compat(p->policyvers);
 	if (!info) {

security/selinux/ss/policydb.h +10 -0

index 8319d5f..f84e856 100644
@@ -242,6 +242,9 @@ struct policydb {
 	struct ebitmap *type_attr_map;
 
 	unsigned int policyvers;
+
+	int handle_unknown;
+	u32 *undefined_perms;
 };
 
 extern void policydb_destroy(struct policydb *p);

@@ -253,6 +256,13 @@ extern int policydb_read(struct policydb *p, void *fp);
 
 #define POLICYDB_CONFIG_MLS    1
 
+/* the config flags related to unknown classes/perms are bits 2 and 3 */
+#define DENY_UNKNOWN	0x00000000
+#define REJECT_UNKNOWN	0x00000002
+#define ALLOW_UNKNOWN	0x00000004
+
+#define POLICYDB_CONFIG_UNKNOWN_MASK 	(DENY_UNKNOWN | REJECT_UNKNOWN | ALLOW_UNKNOWN)
+
 #define OBJECT_R "object_r"
 #define OBJECT_R_VAL 1
 

security/selinux/ss/services.c +75 -10

index 6100fc0..4e18271 100644
@@ -292,6 +292,7 @@ static int context_struct_compute_av(struct context *scontext,
 	struct class_datum *tclass_datum;
 	struct ebitmap *sattr, *tattr;
 	struct ebitmap_node *snode, *tnode;
+	const struct selinux_class_perm *kdefs = &selinux_class_perm;
 	unsigned int i, j;
 
 	/*

@@ -305,13 +306,6 @@ static int context_struct_compute_av(struct context *scontext,
 		    tclass <= SECCLASS_NETLINK_DNRT_SOCKET)
 			tclass = SECCLASS_NETLINK_SOCKET;
 
-	if (!tclass || tclass > policydb.p_classes.nprim) {
-		printk(KERN_ERR "security_compute_av:  unrecognized class %d\n",
-		       tclass);
-		return -EINVAL;
-	}
-	tclass_datum = policydb.class_val_to_struct[tclass - 1];
-
 	/*
 	 * Initialize the access vectors to the default values.
 	 */

@@ -322,6 +316,36 @@ static int context_struct_compute_av(struct context *scontext,
 	avd->seqno = latest_granting;
 
 	/*
+	 * Check for all the invalid cases.
+	 * - tclass 0
+	 * - tclass > policy and > kernel
+	 * - tclass > policy but is a userspace class
+	 * - tclass > policy but we do not allow unknowns
+	 */
+	if (unlikely(!tclass))
+		goto inval_class;
+	if (unlikely(tclass > policydb.p_classes.nprim))
+		if (tclass > kdefs->cts_len || 
+		    !kdefs->class_to_string[tclass - 1] ||
+		    policydb.handle_unknown != ALLOW_UNKNOWN)
+			goto inval_class;
+
+	/* 
+	 * Kernel class and we ALLOW_UNKNOWN so pad the allow decision 
+	 * the pad will be all 1 for unknown classes.
+	 */
+	if (tclass <= kdefs->cts_len && (policydb.handle_unknown == ALLOW_UNKNOWN))
+		avd->allowed = policydb.undefined_perms[tclass - 1];
+
+	/*
+	 * Not in policy. Since decision is completed (all 1 or all 0) return.
+	 */
+	if (unlikely(tclass > policydb.p_classes.nprim))
+		return 0;
+
+	tclass_datum = policydb.class_val_to_struct[tclass - 1];
+
+	/*
 	 * If a specific type enforcement rule was defined for
 	 * this permission check, then use it.
 	 */

@@ -387,6 +411,10 @@ static int context_struct_compute_av(struct context *scontext,
 	}
 
 	return 0;
+
+inval_class:
+	printk(KERN_ERR "%s:  unrecognized class %d\n", __FUNCTION__, tclass);
+	return -EINVAL;
 }
 
 static int security_validtrans_handle_fail(struct context *ocontext,

@@ -1054,6 +1082,13 @@ static int validate_classes(struct policydb *p)
 	const char *def_class, *def_perm, *pol_class;
 	struct symtab *perms;
 
+	if (p->handle_unknown == ALLOW_UNKNOWN) {
+		u32 num_classes = kdefs->cts_len;
+		p->undefined_perms = kcalloc(num_classes, sizeof(u32), GFP_KERNEL);
+		if (!p->undefined_perms)
+			return -ENOMEM;
+	}
+
 	for (i = 1; i < kdefs->cts_len; i++) {
 		def_class = kdefs->class_to_string[i];
 		if (!def_class)

@@ -1062,6 +1097,10 @@ static int validate_classes(struct policydb *p)
 			printk(KERN_INFO
 			       "security:  class %s not defined in policy\n",
 			       def_class);
+			if (p->handle_unknown == ALLOW_UNKNOWN)
+				p->undefined_perms[i-1] = ~0U;
+			if (p->handle_unknown == REJECT_UNKNOWN)
+				return -EINVAL;
 			continue;
 		}
 		pol_class = p->p_class_val_to_name[i-1];

@@ -1087,12 +1126,16 @@ static int validate_classes(struct policydb *p)
 			printk(KERN_INFO
 			       "security:  permission %s in class %s not defined in policy\n",
 			       def_perm, pol_class);
+			if (p->handle_unknown == ALLOW_UNKNOWN)
+				p->undefined_perms[class_val-1] |= perm_val;
+			else if (p->handle_unknown == REJECT_UNKNOWN)
+				return -EINVAL;
 			continue;
 		}
 		perdatum = hashtab_search(perms->table, def_perm);
 		if (perdatum == NULL) {
 			printk(KERN_ERR
-			       "security:  permission %s in class %s not found in policy\n",
+			       "security:  permission %s in class %s not found in policy, bad policy\n",
 			       def_perm, pol_class);
 			return -EINVAL;
 		}

@@ -1130,12 +1173,16 @@ static int validate_classes(struct policydb *p)
 				printk(KERN_INFO
 				       "security:  permission %s in class %s not defined in policy\n",
 				       def_perm, pol_class);
+				if (p->handle_unknown == ALLOW_UNKNOWN)
+					p->undefined_perms[class_val-1] |= (1 << j);
+				else if (p->handle_unknown == REJECT_UNKNOWN)
+					return -EINVAL;
 				continue;
 			}
 			perdatum = hashtab_search(perms->table, def_perm);
 			if (perdatum == NULL) {
 				printk(KERN_ERR
-				       "security:  permission %s in class %s not found in policy\n",
+				       "security:  permission %s in class %s not found in policy, bad policy\n",
 				       def_perm, pol_class);
 				return -EINVAL;
 			}

@@ -2102,6 +2149,25 @@ err:
 	return rc;
 }
 
+int security_get_handle_unknown(void)
+{
+	return policydb.handle_unknown;
+}
+
+char *security_get_handle_unknown_txt(void)
+{
+	switch (policydb.handle_unknown) {
+	case ALLOW_UNKNOWN:
+		return "allow";
+	case REJECT_UNKNOWN:
+		return "reject";
+	case DENY_UNKNOWN:
+		return "deny";
+	default:
+		return "UNKNOWN";
+	}
+}
+
 struct selinux_audit_rule {
 	u32 au_seqno;
 	struct context au_ctxt;
 
 
 
--

This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list. If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to [email protected] with the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.

security/selinux/selinuxfs.c static ssize_t sel_write_load(struct file * file, const char __user * buf, · line 316

Quoted 6 lines

security/selinux/selinuxfs.c +2 -0

@@ -296,6 +312,9 @@ static ssize_t sel_write_load(struct file * file, const char __user * buf,
 	if (length)
 		goto out;
 
+	printk(KERN_INFO "Policy loaded with handle_unknown=%s\n",
+	       security_get_handle_unknown_txt());

I think this should have some well-defined prefix on it, like "SELinux:" or something, to make it easy to identify. Steve Grubb might have an opinion on whether it should use printk or have its own audit message or be added to the load policy audit message.

Quoted 11 lines · Stephen Smalley

security/selinux/selinuxfs.c static ssize_t sel_write_load(struct file * file, const char __user * buf, · line 316

Quoted 6 lines

security/selinux/selinuxfs.c +2 -0

@@ -296,6 +312,9 @@ static ssize_t sel_write_load(struct file * file, const char __user * buf,
 	if (length)
 		goto out;
 
+	printk(KERN_INFO "Policy loaded with handle_unknown=%s\n",
+	       security_get_handle_unknown_txt());

I think this should have some well-defined prefix on it, like "SELinux:" or something, to make it easy to identify. Steve Grubb might have an opinion on whether it should use printk or have its own audit message or be added to the load policy audit message.

Baah, yeah, it should have that prefix.

I talked to sgrubb about it, he said that since it wasn't something which could be 'changed' (like setenforce or a boolean) it didn't need an audit message. I offered to tack it onto the policy load audit message but he didn't at the time seem to feel it was portraying useful information since we assume we know what policy was loaded and thus just knowing it was loaded should be enough to tell us the handle_unknown state.

He instead suggested an addition to sestatus or some other tool so it could be read if the admin cared.

Do you have other feelings now steve?

-Eric

Quoted 9 lines · Eric Paris

Allow policy to select, in much the same way as it selects MLS support, how the kernel should handle access decisions which contain either unknown classes or unknown permissions in known classes. The three choices are

0 - Deny unknown security access. (default)
2 - reject loading policy if it does not contain all definitions 4 - allow unknown security access

Quoted 2 lines

The policy's choice is exported (with a value of 0,2,4) to userspace through /selinuxfs/handle_unknown

Eamon, does this userspace interface work for you to use in the userspace AVC? Do you want the integer value like this or would you prefer the "reject", "deny", or "allow" string that is displayed by the kernel in its log message at load policy time?

Quoted 10 lines · Stephen Smalley

Quoted 9 lines · Eric Paris

Allow policy to select, in much the same way as it selects MLS support, how the kernel should handle access decisions which contain either unknown classes or unknown permissions in known classes. The three choices are

0 - Deny unknown security access. (default)
2 - reject loading policy if it does not contain all definitions 4 - allow unknown security access

Quoted 8 lines

Quoted 2 lines

The policy's choice is exported (with a value of 0,2,4) to userspace through /selinuxfs/handle_unknown

Eamon, does this userspace interface work for you to use in the userspace AVC? Do you want the integer value like this or would you prefer the "reject", "deny", or "allow" string that is displayed by the kernel in its log message at load policy time?

Numeric values are fine, but the tristate is a little cumbersome. Would it be possible to split this into two boolean files, one reporting zero/one for "don't reject/reject" and one reporting zero/one for "allow/deny"?

Also, I quickly scanned the patch and I didn't see any netlink code. I need a netlink notification delivered to userspace when the values change. This could be added to the policyload message, or a new separate message type, or both.

Quoted 3 lines · Eamon Walsh

Numeric values are fine, but the tristate is a little cumbersome. Would
it be possible to split this into two boolean files, one reporting zero/one for "don't reject/reject" and one reporting zero/one for "allow/deny"?

Is this really necessary? Are you really trying to say you don't want to know about reject and if I put it in another file you can just ignore it? I'm fine with that if userspace just plain doesn't care about it, I'll just make one allow/deny boolean. I don't want to create another selinuxfs file if it is going to be useless. If 2 files are actually useful and needed I'm willing to do that too, or maybe one file which outputs 2 boolean flags.

cat unknown
0 0

Quoted 16 lines · Eric Paris

Quoted 5 lines · Eamon Walsh

Numeric values are fine, but the tristate is a little cumbersome. Would it be possible to split this into two boolean files, one reporting zero/one for "don't reject/reject" and one reporting zero/one for "allow/deny"?

Is this really necessary? Are you really trying to say you don't want to know about reject and if I put it in another file you can just ignore it? I'm fine with that if userspace just plain doesn't care about it, I'll just make one allow/deny boolean. I don't want to create another selinuxfs file if it is going to be useless. If 2 files are actually useful and needed I'm willing to do that too, or maybe one file which outputs 2 boolean flags.

Quoted 3 lines

cat unknown
0 0

The issue is not whether or not the values will be consumed. It's about avoiding the enum,
list of #defines, or flag values that will be necessary to represent the tristate.

Here's a patch that applies on top of your patch. It splits up the policyrep field into two
cleanly separated bits. Does the files too. Should be fully compatible, although I didn't
have time to compile test. Please apply.

Signed-off-by Eamon Walsh <[email protected]>

---

 include/security.h |    4 ++--
 selinuxfs.c        |   13 +++++++++----
 ss/policydb.c      |    8 ++------
 ss/policydb.h      |    6 ++----
 ss/services.c      |   43 +++++++++++++++++--------------------------
 5 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-)

security/selinux/include/security.h +2 -2

index 99b3e24..39337af 100644
@@ -90,8 +90,8 @@ int security_sid_mls_copy(u32 sid, u32 mls_sid, u32 *new_sid);
 
 int security_get_classes(char ***classes, int *nclasses);
 int security_get_permissions(char *class, char ***perms, int *nperms);
-int security_get_handle_unknown(void);
-char *security_get_handle_unknown_txt(void);
+int security_get_reject_unknown(void);
+int security_get_allow_unknown(void);
 
 #define SECURITY_FS_USE_XATTR		1 /* use xattr */
 #define SECURITY_FS_USE_TRANS		2 /* use transition SIDs, e.g. devpts/tmpfs */

security/selinux/selinuxfs.c +9 -4

index f7d1bfa..ac9e79b 100644
@@ -103,7 +103,8 @@ enum sel_inos {
 	SEL_MEMBER,	/* compute polyinstantiation membership decision */
 	SEL_CHECKREQPROT, /* check requested protection, not kernel-applied one */
 	SEL_COMPAT_NET,	/* whether to use old compat network packet controls */
-	SEL_HANDLE_UNKNOWN, /* export unknown handling to userspace */
+	SEL_REJECT_UNKNOWN, /* export unknown reject handling to userspace */
+	SEL_DENY_UNKNOWN, /* export unknown deny handling to userspace */
 	SEL_INO_NEXT,	/* The next inode number to use */
 };
 

@@ -183,7 +184,9 @@ static ssize_t sel_read_handle_unknown(struct file *filp, char __user *buf,
 {
 	char tmpbuf[TMPBUFLEN];
 	ssize_t length;
-	int handle_unknown = security_get_handle_unknown();
+	ino_t ino = filep->f_path.dentry->d_inode->i_ino;
+	int handle_unknown = (ino == SEL_REJECT_UNKNOWN) ?
+		security_get_reject_unknown() : !security_get_allow_unknown();
 
 	length = scnprintf(tmpbuf, TMPBUFLEN, "%d", handle_unknown);
 	return simple_read_from_buffer(buf, count, ppos, tmpbuf, length);

@@ -313,7 +316,8 @@ static ssize_t sel_write_load(struct file * file, const char __user * buf,
 		goto out;
 
 	printk(KERN_INFO "Policy loaded with handle_unknown=%s\n",
-	       security_get_handle_unknown_txt());
+	       security_get_reject_unknown() ? "reject" :
+	       (security_get_allow_unknown() ? "allow" : "deny"));
 
 	ret = sel_make_bools();
 	if (ret) {

@@ -1594,7 +1598,8 @@ static int sel_fill_super(struct super_block * sb, void * data, int silent)
 		[SEL_MEMBER] = {"member", &transaction_ops, S_IRUGO|S_IWUGO},
 		[SEL_CHECKREQPROT] = {"checkreqprot", &sel_checkreqprot_ops, S_IRUGO|S_IWUSR},
 		[SEL_COMPAT_NET] = {"compat_net", &sel_compat_net_ops, S_IRUGO|S_IWUSR},
-		[SEL_HANDLE_UNKNOWN] = {"handle_unknown", &sel_handle_unknown_ops, S_IRUGO|S_IWUSR},
+		[SEL_REJECT_UNKNOWN] = {"reject_unknown", &sel_handle_unknown_ops, S_IRUGO|S_IWUSR},
+		[SEL_DENY_UNKNOWN] = {"deny_unknown", &sel_handle_unknown_ops, S_IRUGO|S_IWUSR},
 		/* last one */ {""}
 	};
 	ret = simple_fill_super(sb, SELINUX_MAGIC, selinux_files);

security/selinux/ss/policydb.c +2 -6

index 588dcfd..70d5baa 100644
@@ -1532,12 +1532,8 @@ int policydb_read(struct policydb *p, void *fp)
 			goto bad;
 		}
 	}
-	p->handle_unknown = le32_to_cpu(buf[1]) & POLICYDB_CONFIG_UNKNOWN_MASK;
-
-	if (p->handle_unknown > ALLOW_UNKNOWN) {
-		printk(KERN_ERR "selinux: invalid options for handle_unknown\n");
-		goto bad;
-	}
+	p->reject_unknown = !!(le32_to_cpu(buf[1]) & REJECT_UNKNOWN);
+	p->allow_unknown = !!(le32_to_cpu(buf[1]) & ALLOW_UNKNOWN);
 
 	info = policydb_lookup_compat(p->policyvers);
 	if (!info) {

security/selinux/ss/policydb.h +2 -4

index f84e856..844d310 100644
@@ -243,7 +243,8 @@ struct policydb {
 
 	unsigned int policyvers;
 
-	int handle_unknown;
+	unsigned int reject_unknown : 1;
+	unsigned int allow_unknown : 1;
 	u32 *undefined_perms;
 };
 

@@ -257,12 +258,9 @@ extern int policydb_read(struct policydb *p, void *fp);
 #define POLICYDB_CONFIG_MLS    1
 
 /* the config flags related to unknown classes/perms are bits 2 and 3 */
-#define DENY_UNKNOWN	0x00000000
 #define REJECT_UNKNOWN	0x00000002
 #define ALLOW_UNKNOWN	0x00000004
 
-#define POLICYDB_CONFIG_UNKNOWN_MASK 	(DENY_UNKNOWN | REJECT_UNKNOWN | ALLOW_UNKNOWN)
-
 #define OBJECT_R "object_r"
 #define OBJECT_R_VAL 1
 

security/selinux/ss/services.c +16 -20

index 4e18271..4af5be9 100644
@@ -327,14 +327,14 @@ static int context_struct_compute_av(struct context *scontext,
 	if (unlikely(tclass > policydb.p_classes.nprim))
 		if (tclass > kdefs->cts_len || 
 		    !kdefs->class_to_string[tclass - 1] ||
-		    policydb.handle_unknown != ALLOW_UNKNOWN)
+		    !policydb.allow_unknown)
 			goto inval_class;
 
 	/* 
-	 * Kernel class and we ALLOW_UNKNOWN so pad the allow decision 
+	 * Kernel class and we allow unknown so pad the allow decision 
 	 * the pad will be all 1 for unknown classes.
 	 */
-	if (tclass <= kdefs->cts_len && (policydb.handle_unknown == ALLOW_UNKNOWN))
+	if (tclass <= kdefs->cts_len && policydb.allow_unknown)
 		avd->allowed = policydb.undefined_perms[tclass - 1];
 
 	/*

@@ -1082,7 +1082,7 @@ static int validate_classes(struct policydb *p)
 	const char *def_class, *def_perm, *pol_class;
 	struct symtab *perms;
 
-	if (p->handle_unknown == ALLOW_UNKNOWN) {
+	if (p->allow_unknown) {
 		u32 num_classes = kdefs->cts_len;
 		p->undefined_perms = kcalloc(num_classes, sizeof(u32), GFP_KERNEL);
 		if (!p->undefined_perms)

@@ -1097,10 +1097,10 @@ static int validate_classes(struct policydb *p)
 			printk(KERN_INFO
 			       "security:  class %s not defined in policy\n",
 			       def_class);
-			if (p->handle_unknown == ALLOW_UNKNOWN)
-				p->undefined_perms[i-1] = ~0U;
-			if (p->handle_unknown == REJECT_UNKNOWN)
+			if (p->reject_unknown)
 				return -EINVAL;
+			if (p->allow_unknown)
+				p->undefined_perms[i-1] = ~0U;
 			continue;
 		}
 		pol_class = p->p_class_val_to_name[i-1];

@@ -1126,10 +1126,10 @@ static int validate_classes(struct policydb *p)
 			printk(KERN_INFO
 			       "security:  permission %s in class %s not defined in policy\n",
 			       def_perm, pol_class);
-			if (p->handle_unknown == ALLOW_UNKNOWN)
-				p->undefined_perms[class_val-1] |= perm_val;
-			else if (p->handle_unknown == REJECT_UNKNOWN)
+			if (p->reject_unknown)
 				return -EINVAL;
+			if (p->allow_unknown)
+				p->undefined_perms[class_val-1] |= perm_val;
 			continue;
 		}
 		perdatum = hashtab_search(perms->table, def_perm);

@@ -1173,10 +1173,10 @@ static int validate_classes(struct policydb *p)
 				printk(KERN_INFO
 				       "security:  permission %s in class %s not defined in policy\n",
 				       def_perm, pol_class);
-				if (p->handle_unknown == ALLOW_UNKNOWN)
-					p->undefined_perms[class_val-1] |= (1 << j);
-				else if (p->handle_unknown == REJECT_UNKNOWN)
+				if (p->reject_unknown)
 					return -EINVAL;
+				if (p->allow_unknown)
+					p->undefined_perms[class_val-1] |= (1 << j);
 				continue;
 			}
 			perdatum = hashtab_search(perms->table, def_perm);

@@ -2149,23 +2149,14 @@ err:
 	return rc;
 }
 
-int security_get_handle_unknown(void)
+int security_get_reject_unknown(void)
 {
-	return policydb.handle_unknown;
+	return policydb.reject_unknown;
 }
 
-char *security_get_handle_unknown_txt(void)
+int security_get_allow_unknown(void)
 {
-	switch (policydb.handle_unknown) {
-	case ALLOW_UNKNOWN:
-		return "allow";
-	case REJECT_UNKNOWN: