From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22C93C742A5 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 03:13:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05B8921019 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 03:13:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728796AbfGLDN0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Jul 2019 23:13:26 -0400 Received: from namei.org ([65.99.196.166]:34784 "EHLO namei.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728497AbfGLDN0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Jul 2019 23:13:26 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by namei.org (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x6C3CNjx022046; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 03:12:23 GMT Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 13:12:23 +1000 (AEST) From: James Morris To: Jarkko Sakkinen cc: linux-sgx@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Some LSM and SGX remarks before parting of for two weeks In-Reply-To: <20190712021055.22qijpsahsy3gpmp@linux.intel.com> Message-ID: References: <20190712021055.22qijpsahsy3gpmp@linux.intel.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (LRH 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Fri, 12 Jul 2019, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > Before going to a two week vacation (sending v21 today), I'll make some > remarks on SGX and LSM's: > > 1. Currently all patch sets proposing LSM changes are missing a problem > statement and describe a solution to an undescribed problem. > 2. When speaking of SELinux I haven't seen any draft's on how would > define a policy module with the new constructs. Does not have to > be a full policy modules but more like snippets demosntrating that > "this would work". > 3. All the SELinux discussion is centered on type based policies. > Potentially one could isolate enclaves with some UBAC or RBAC > based model. That could be good first step and might not even > require LSM changes. Unless I misunderstand what you mean here, RBAC and UBAC in SELinux still require LSM hooks, and are typically integrated with Type Enforcement. -- James Morris