From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: Jordan Glover <Golden_Miller83@protonmail.ch>
Cc: Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>,
Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>,
James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>,
"Schaufler, Casey" <casey.schaufler@intel.com>,
linux-security-module <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH security-next v4 23/32] selinux: Remove boot parameter
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2018 09:54:05 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jKqXNbEvPr1axQtGCCnWsGhDgjynW5u326mcx4vZ1oH8g@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <QpdcE4QSCQKJqDmB2QBEGBlnlioHuRHlM0g5HF8KbHjU1zIUAOjnQ2r9EIMu3m0S2OWNR3_M_TSp_M6CVDqkp6kKuFPUvegsyDPNw1AGju4=@protonmail.ch>
On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 9:33 AM, Jordan Glover
<Golden_Miller83@protonmail.ch> wrote:
> It's always documented as: "selinux=1 security=selinux" so security= should
> still do the job and selinux=1 become no-op, no?
The v3 patch set worked this way, yes. (The per-LSM enable defaults
were set by the LSM. Only in the case of "lsm.disable=selinux" would
the above stop working.)
John did not like the separation of having two CONFIG and two
bootparams mixing the controls. The v3 resolution rules were:
SECURITY_SELINUX_BOOTPARAM_VALUE overrides CONFIG_LSM_ENABLE.
SECURITY_APPARMOR_BOOTPARAM_VALUE overrides CONFIG_LSM_ENABLE.
selinux= overrides SECURITY_SELINUX_BOOTPARAM_VALUE.
apparmor.enabled= overrides SECURITY_APPARMOR_BOOTPARAM_VALUE.
apparmor= overrides apparmor.enabled=.
lsm.enable= overrides selinux=.
lsm.enable= overrides apparmor=.
lsm.disable= overrides lsm.enable=.
major LSM _omission_ from security= (if present) overrides lsm.enable.
v4 removed the per-LSM boot params and CONFIGs at John's request, but
Paul and Stephen don't want this for SELinux.
The pieces for reducing conflict with CONFIG_LSM_ENABLE and
lsm.{enable,disable}= were:
1- Remove SECURITY_APPARMOR_BOOTPARAM_VALUE.
2- Remove apparmor= and apparmor.enabled=.
3- Remove SECURITY_SELINUX_BOOTPARAM_VALUE.
4- Remove selinux=.
v4 used all of 1-4 above. SELinux says "4" cannot happen as it's too
commonly used. Would 3 be okay for SELinux?
John, with 4 not happening, do you prefer to not have 2 happen?
With CONFIGs removed, then the boot time defaults are controlled by
CONFIG_LSM_ENABLE, but the boot params continue to work as before.
Only the use of the new lsm.enable= and lsm.disable= would override
the per-LSM boot params. This would clean up the build-time CONFIG
weirdness, and leave the existing boot params as before (putting us
functionally in between the v3 and v4 series).
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-10-02 16:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 92+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-10-02 0:54 [PATCH security-next v4 00/32] LSM: Explict LSM ordering Kees Cook
2018-10-02 0:54 ` [PATCH security-next v4 01/32] LSM: Correctly announce start of LSM initialization Kees Cook
2018-10-02 0:54 ` [PATCH security-next v4 02/32] vmlinux.lds.h: Avoid copy/paste of security_init section Kees Cook
2018-10-02 0:54 ` [PATCH security-next v4 03/32] LSM: Rename .security_initcall section to .lsm_info Kees Cook
2018-10-02 0:54 ` [PATCH security-next v4 04/32] LSM: Remove initcall tracing Kees Cook
2018-10-02 21:14 ` James Morris
2018-10-02 0:54 ` [PATCH security-next v4 05/32] LSM: Convert from initcall to struct lsm_info Kees Cook
2018-10-02 0:54 ` [PATCH security-next v4 06/32] vmlinux.lds.h: Move LSM_TABLE into INIT_DATA Kees Cook
2018-10-02 21:15 ` James Morris
2018-10-02 0:54 ` [PATCH security-next v4 07/32] LSM: Convert security_initcall() into DEFINE_LSM() Kees Cook
2018-10-02 21:16 ` James Morris
2018-10-02 0:54 ` [PATCH security-next v4 08/32] LSM: Record LSM name in struct lsm_info Kees Cook
2018-10-02 0:54 ` [PATCH security-next v4 09/32] LSM: Provide init debugging infrastructure Kees Cook
2018-10-02 21:17 ` James Morris
2018-10-02 0:54 ` [PATCH security-next v4 10/32] LSM: Don't ignore initialization failures Kees Cook
2018-10-02 21:20 ` James Morris
2018-10-02 21:38 ` Kees Cook
2018-10-02 0:54 ` [PATCH security-next v4 11/32] LSM: Introduce LSM_FLAG_LEGACY_MAJOR Kees Cook
2018-10-02 0:54 ` [PATCH security-next v4 12/32] LSM: Provide separate ordered initialization Kees Cook
2018-10-02 0:54 ` [PATCH security-next v4 13/32] LoadPin: Rename "enable" to "enforce" Kees Cook
2018-10-02 1:06 ` Randy Dunlap
2018-10-02 4:47 ` Kees Cook
2018-10-02 0:54 ` [PATCH security-next v4 14/32] LSM: Plumb visibility into optional "enabled" state Kees Cook
2018-10-02 0:54 ` [PATCH security-next v4 15/32] LSM: Lift LSM selection out of individual LSMs Kees Cook
2018-10-02 0:54 ` [PATCH security-next v4 16/32] LSM: Prepare for arbitrary LSM enabling Kees Cook
2018-10-02 0:54 ` [PATCH security-next v4 17/32] LSM: Introduce CONFIG_LSM_ENABLE Kees Cook
2018-10-02 0:54 ` [PATCH security-next v4 18/32] LSM: Introduce lsm.enable= and lsm.disable= Kees Cook
2018-10-02 0:54 ` [PATCH security-next v4 19/32] LSM: Prepare for reorganizing "security=" logic Kees Cook
2018-10-02 0:54 ` [PATCH security-next v4 20/32] LSM: Refactor "security=" in terms of enable/disable Kees Cook
2018-10-02 0:54 ` [PATCH security-next v4 21/32] LSM: Finalize centralized LSM enabling logic Kees Cook
2018-10-02 1:18 ` Randy Dunlap
2018-10-02 4:49 ` Kees Cook
2018-10-02 0:54 ` [PATCH security-next v4 22/32] apparmor: Remove boot parameter Kees Cook
2018-10-02 0:54 ` [PATCH security-next v4 23/32] selinux: " Kees Cook
2018-10-02 12:12 ` Paul Moore
2018-10-02 13:42 ` Stephen Smalley
2018-10-02 14:44 ` Kees Cook
2018-10-02 14:58 ` Stephen Smalley
2018-10-02 16:33 ` Jordan Glover
2018-10-02 16:54 ` Kees Cook [this message]
2018-10-02 18:33 ` Stephen Smalley
2018-10-02 19:02 ` Kees Cook
2018-10-02 18:57 ` John Johansen
2018-10-02 19:17 ` Kees Cook
2018-10-02 19:47 ` John Johansen
2018-10-02 20:29 ` Kees Cook
2018-10-02 21:11 ` John Johansen
2018-10-02 22:06 ` James Morris
2018-10-02 23:06 ` Kees Cook
2018-10-02 23:46 ` John Johansen
2018-10-02 23:54 ` Kees Cook
2018-10-03 0:05 ` John Johansen
2018-10-03 0:12 ` Kees Cook
2018-10-03 13:15 ` John Johansen
2018-10-03 13:39 ` Stephen Smalley
2018-10-03 17:26 ` Kees Cook
2018-10-03 19:43 ` Stephen Smalley
2018-10-04 5:38 ` John Johansen
2018-10-04 16:02 ` Kees Cook
2018-10-08 14:25 ` Paul Moore
2018-10-03 18:17 ` James Morris
2018-10-03 18:20 ` Kees Cook
2018-10-03 18:28 ` James Morris
2018-10-03 20:10 ` Kees Cook
2018-10-03 20:36 ` Kees Cook
2018-10-03 21:19 ` James Morris
2018-10-04 5:56 ` John Johansen
2018-10-04 16:18 ` Kees Cook
2018-10-04 17:40 ` Jordan Glover
2018-10-04 17:42 ` Kees Cook
2018-10-03 21:34 ` James Morris
2018-10-03 23:55 ` Kees Cook
2018-10-03 23:59 ` Randy Dunlap
2018-10-04 0:03 ` Kees Cook
2018-10-04 6:22 ` John Johansen
2018-10-04 6:18 ` John Johansen
2018-10-04 17:49 ` James Morris
2018-10-05 0:05 ` Kees Cook
2018-10-05 4:58 ` James Morris
2018-10-05 16:29 ` James Morris
2018-10-05 16:35 ` Kees Cook
2018-10-02 23:28 ` John Johansen
2018-10-02 16:34 ` Kees Cook
2018-10-02 0:54 ` [PATCH security-next v4 24/32] LSM: Build ordered list of ordered LSMs for init Kees Cook
2018-10-02 0:54 ` [PATCH security-next v4 25/32] LSM: Introduce CONFIG_LSM_ORDER Kees Cook
2018-10-02 0:54 ` [PATCH security-next v4 26/32] LSM: Introduce "lsm.order=" for boottime ordering Kees Cook
2018-10-02 0:55 ` [PATCH security-next v4 27/32] LoadPin: Initialize as ordered LSM Kees Cook
2018-10-02 0:55 ` [PATCH security-next v4 28/32] Yama: " Kees Cook
2018-10-02 0:55 ` [PATCH security-next v4 29/32] LSM: Introduce enum lsm_order Kees Cook
2018-10-02 0:55 ` [PATCH security-next v4 30/32] capability: Initialize as LSM_ORDER_FIRST Kees Cook
2018-10-02 0:55 ` [PATCH security-next v4 31/32] LSM: Separate idea of "major" LSM from "exclusive" LSM Kees Cook
2018-10-02 0:55 ` [PATCH security-next v4 32/32] LSM: Add all exclusive LSMs to ordered initialization Kees Cook
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=CAGXu5jKqXNbEvPr1axQtGCCnWsGhDgjynW5u326mcx4vZ1oH8g@mail.gmail.com \
--to=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=Golden_Miller83@protonmail.ch \
--cc=casey.schaufler@intel.com \
--cc=casey@schaufler-ca.com \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=john.johansen@canonical.com \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paul@paul-moore.com \
--cc=penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp \
--cc=sds@tycho.nsa.gov \
/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).