From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
To: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>,
Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>,
syzbot <syzbot+21016130b0580a9de3b5@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>,
tyhicks@canonical.com,
John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com>,
James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
Serge Hallyn <serge@hallyn.com>,
syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com>,
Jeffrey Vander Stoep <jeffv@google.com>,
SELinux <selinux@vger.kernel.org>,
Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au>,
Laurent Bigonville <bigon@debian.org>,
syzkaller <syzkaller@googlegroups.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] LSM: Allow syzbot to ignore security= parameter.
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2019 19:52:30 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <54c0ae39-f35c-bdcd-a217-8e62ef14e41b@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6def6199-0235-7c37-974c-baf731725606@schaufler-ca.com>
On 2019/02/08 1:24, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>>>> Then, I think that it is straightforward (and easier to manage) to ignore security= parameter
>>>> when lsm= parameter is specified.
>>> That reduces flexibility somewhat. If I am debugging security modules
>>> I may want to use lsm= to specify the order while using security= to
>>> identify a specific exclusive module. I could do that using lsm= by
>>> itself, but habits die hard.
>> "lsm=" can be used for identifying a specific exclusive module, and Ubuntu kernels would
>> have to use CONFIG_LSM (or "lsm=") for identifying the default exclusive module (in order
>> to allow enabling both TOMOYO and one of SELinux,Smack,AppArmor at the same time).
>>
>> Since "security=" can't be used for selectively enable/disable more than one of
>> SELinux,Smack,TOMOYO,AppArmor, I think that recommending users to migrate to "lsm=" is the
>> better direction. And ignoring "security=" when "lsm=" is specified is easier to understand.
>
> I added Kees to the CC list. Kees, what to you think about
> ignoring security= if lsm= is specified? I'm ambivalent.
>
>
To help administrators easily understand what LSM modules are possibly enabled by default (which
have to be fetched from e.g. /boot/config-`uname -r`) and specify lsm= parameter when they need,
I propose changes shown below.
diff --git a/security/security.c b/security/security.c
index 3147785e..051d708 100644
--- a/security/security.c
+++ b/security/security.c
@@ -51,8 +51,6 @@
static __initdata const char *chosen_lsm_order;
static __initdata const char *chosen_major_lsm;
-static __initconst const char * const builtin_lsm_order = CONFIG_LSM;
-
/* Ordered list of LSMs to initialize. */
static __initdata struct lsm_info **ordered_lsms;
static __initdata struct lsm_info *exclusive;
@@ -284,14 +282,22 @@ static void __init ordered_lsm_parse(const char *order, const char *origin)
static void __init ordered_lsm_init(void)
{
struct lsm_info **lsm;
+ const char *order = CONFIG_LSM;
+ const char *origin = "builtin";
ordered_lsms = kcalloc(LSM_COUNT + 1, sizeof(*ordered_lsms),
GFP_KERNEL);
- if (chosen_lsm_order)
- ordered_lsm_parse(chosen_lsm_order, "cmdline");
- else
- ordered_lsm_parse(builtin_lsm_order, "builtin");
+ if (chosen_lsm_order) {
+ if (chosen_major_lsm) {
+ pr_info("security= is ignored because of lsm=\n");
+ chosen_major_lsm = NULL;
+ }
+ order = chosen_lsm_order;
+ origin = "cmdline";
+ }
+ pr_info("Security Framework initializing: %s\n", order);
+ ordered_lsm_parse(order, origin);
for (lsm = ordered_lsms; *lsm; lsm++)
prepare_lsm(*lsm);
@@ -333,8 +339,6 @@ int __init security_init(void)
int i;
struct hlist_head *list = (struct hlist_head *) &security_hook_heads;
- pr_info("Security Framework initializing\n");
-
for (i = 0; i < sizeof(security_hook_heads) / sizeof(struct hlist_head);
i++)
INIT_HLIST_HEAD(&list[i]);
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-02-08 10:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 49+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-08-30 2:17 WARNING in apparmor_secid_to_secctx syzbot
2018-08-30 2:21 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2018-08-31 16:03 ` Stephen Smalley
2018-08-31 16:07 ` Paul Moore
2018-08-31 16:16 ` Stephen Smalley
2018-08-31 16:17 ` Stephen Smalley
2018-08-31 22:38 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2018-09-04 12:57 ` Stephen Smalley
2018-09-04 13:16 ` Russell Coker
2018-09-04 14:53 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2018-09-05 17:13 ` Kees Cook
2018-09-04 15:02 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2018-09-04 15:28 ` Stephen Smalley
2018-09-04 15:38 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2018-09-04 17:02 ` Stephen Smalley
2018-09-05 1:21 ` Paul Moore
2018-09-05 11:08 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2018-09-05 17:37 ` Casey Schaufler
2018-09-06 10:59 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2018-09-06 11:19 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2018-09-06 19:35 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2019-01-29 11:32 ` Tetsuo Handa
2019-01-30 14:45 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2019-01-30 16:30 ` Micah Morton
2019-01-31 0:22 ` Tetsuo Handa
2019-02-01 10:09 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2019-02-01 10:11 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2019-02-01 10:43 ` Tetsuo Handa
2019-02-01 10:50 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2019-02-01 13:09 ` [PATCH] LSM: Allow syzbot to ignore security= parameter Tetsuo Handa
2019-02-04 8:07 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2019-02-06 10:23 ` Tetsuo Handa
2019-02-06 17:03 ` Casey Schaufler
2019-02-07 2:30 ` Tetsuo Handa
2019-02-07 16:24 ` Casey Schaufler
2019-02-08 10:52 ` Tetsuo Handa [this message]
2019-02-08 16:23 ` Casey Schaufler
2019-02-09 0:28 ` Tetsuo Handa
2019-02-09 1:40 ` Tetsuo Handa
2019-02-08 21:49 ` Kees Cook
2019-02-08 21:33 ` Kees Cook
2018-08-30 3:43 ` WARNING in apparmor_secid_to_secctx syzbot
2018-09-01 9:18 ` John Johansen
2018-09-02 4:33 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2018-09-02 4:52 ` John Johansen
2018-09-02 5:03 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2018-09-02 5:03 ` syzbot
2018-09-02 5:05 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2018-09-02 5:46 ` syzbot
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=54c0ae39-f35c-bdcd-a217-8e62ef14e41b@i-love.sakura.ne.jp \
--to=penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bigon@debian.org \
--cc=casey@schaufler-ca.com \
--cc=dvyukov@google.com \
--cc=jeffv@google.com \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=john.johansen@canonical.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paul@paul-moore.com \
--cc=russell@coker.com.au \
--cc=sds@tycho.nsa.gov \
--cc=selinux@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=serge@hallyn.com \
--cc=syzbot+21016130b0580a9de3b5@syzkaller.appspotmail.com \
--cc=syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com \
--cc=syzkaller@googlegroups.com \
--cc=tyhicks@canonical.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).