From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
James Morris <james.l.morris@oracle.com>,
Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
linux-integrity <linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-security-module <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
"Luis R . Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
Eric Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
Kexec Mailing List <kexec@lists.infradead.org>,
Andres Rodriguez <andresx7@gmail.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
Jessica Yu <jeyu@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/8] kexec/firmware: support system wide policy requiring signatures
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2018 23:09:20 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180605040920.GA19747@mail.hallyn.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGXu5jJGrPtOUa8f4pMiZTiYBEP_eVJ1oEUqum8YBr9JbfuLmg@mail.gmail.com>
Quoting Kees Cook (keescook@chromium.org):
> On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 7:03 AM, Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2018-05-29 at 14:01 -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> >> Instead of adding the security_kernel_read_file LSM hook - or defining a
> >> wrapper for security_kernel_read_file LSM hook and adding it, or
> >> renaming the existing hook to security_kernel_read_data() and adding it
> >> - in places where the kernel isn't reading a file, this version of the
> >> patch set defines a new LSM hook named security_kernel_load_data().
> >>
> >> The new LSM hook does not replace the existing security_kernel_read_file
> >> LSM hook, which is still needed, but defines a new LSM hook allowing
> >> LSMs and IMA-appraisal the opportunity to fail loading userspace
> >> provided file/data.
> >>
> >> The only difference between the two LSM hooks is the LSM hook name and a
> >> file descriptor. Whether this is cause enough for requiring a new LSM
> >> hook, is left to the security community.
> >
> > Paul does not have a preference as to adding a new LSM hook or calling
> > the existing hook. Either way is fine, as long as both the new and
> > existing hooks call the existing function.
> >
> > Casey didn't like the idea of a wrapper.
> > James suggested renaming the LSM hook.
> >
> > The maintainers for the callers of the LSM hook prefer a meaningful
> > LSM hook name. The "null" argument is not as much of a concern. Only
> > Eric seems to be asking for a separate, new LSM hook, without the
> > "null" argument.
> >
> > Unless someone really objects, to accommodate Eric we'll define a new
> > LSM hook named security_kernel_load_data. Eric, are you planning on
> > Ack'ing patches 1 & 2?
>
> I'm sorry I'm late to review this series. Reading through what you
> have, it seems like the existing hook is fine. If the name has
> slipped, we can rename it, but I think adding another hook for the
> same logical action (loading something into the kernel) is confusing.
Personally I agree with Eric and prefer a new hook. I don't feel strongly
enough about it to keep bikeshedding, but since this set already exists,
it seems like the way to go.
> It seems that only patches needed are 2 & 4 (new hook callsites), 5, 6
> & 7 (IMA coverage and policy). 1 and 8 seem needless to me. If the
> objection is that isn't use on non-file objects, sure, rename it. But
> I don't see a _logical_ difference between the proposed and existing
> callsites. enum kernel_read_file_id covers the "type" already....
>
> -Kees
>
> --
> Kees Cook
> Pixel Security
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: serge@hallyn.com (Serge E. Hallyn)
To: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v4 0/8] kexec/firmware: support system wide policy requiring signatures
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2018 23:09:20 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180605040920.GA19747@mail.hallyn.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGXu5jJGrPtOUa8f4pMiZTiYBEP_eVJ1oEUqum8YBr9JbfuLmg@mail.gmail.com>
Quoting Kees Cook (keescook at chromium.org):
> On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 7:03 AM, Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2018-05-29 at 14:01 -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> >> Instead of adding the security_kernel_read_file LSM hook - or defining a
> >> wrapper for security_kernel_read_file LSM hook and adding it, or
> >> renaming the existing hook to security_kernel_read_data() and adding it
> >> - in places where the kernel isn't reading a file, this version of the
> >> patch set defines a new LSM hook named security_kernel_load_data().
> >>
> >> The new LSM hook does not replace the existing security_kernel_read_file
> >> LSM hook, which is still needed, but defines a new LSM hook allowing
> >> LSMs and IMA-appraisal the opportunity to fail loading userspace
> >> provided file/data.
> >>
> >> The only difference between the two LSM hooks is the LSM hook name and a
> >> file descriptor. Whether this is cause enough for requiring a new LSM
> >> hook, is left to the security community.
> >
> > Paul does not have a preference as to adding a new LSM hook or calling
> > the existing hook. Either way is fine, as long as both the new and
> > existing hooks call the existing function.
> >
> > Casey didn't like the idea of a wrapper.
> > James suggested renaming the LSM hook.
> >
> > The maintainers for the callers of the LSM hook prefer a meaningful
> > LSM hook name. The "null" argument is not as much of a concern. Only
> > Eric seems to be asking for a separate, new LSM hook, without the
> > "null" argument.
> >
> > Unless someone really objects, to accommodate Eric we'll define a new
> > LSM hook named security_kernel_load_data. Eric, are you planning on
> > Ack'ing patches 1 & 2?
>
> I'm sorry I'm late to review this series. Reading through what you
> have, it seems like the existing hook is fine. If the name has
> slipped, we can rename it, but I think adding another hook for the
> same logical action (loading something into the kernel) is confusing.
Personally I agree with Eric and prefer a new hook. I don't feel strongly
enough about it to keep bikeshedding, but since this set already exists,
it seems like the way to go.
> It seems that only patches needed are 2 & 4 (new hook callsites), 5, 6
> & 7 (IMA coverage and policy). 1 and 8 seem needless to me. If the
> objection is that isn't use on non-file objects, sure, rename it. But
> I don't see a _logical_ difference between the proposed and existing
> callsites. enum kernel_read_file_id covers the "type" already....
>
> -Kees
>
> --
> Kees Cook
> Pixel Security
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in
the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: Andres Rodriguez <andresx7@gmail.com>,
Eric Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Kexec Mailing List <kexec@lists.infradead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
linux-security-module <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
"Luis R . Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
James Morris <james.l.morris@oracle.com>,
Jessica Yu <jeyu@kernel.org>,
Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
linux-integrity <linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/8] kexec/firmware: support system wide policy requiring signatures
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2018 23:09:20 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180605040920.GA19747@mail.hallyn.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGXu5jJGrPtOUa8f4pMiZTiYBEP_eVJ1oEUqum8YBr9JbfuLmg@mail.gmail.com>
Quoting Kees Cook (keescook@chromium.org):
> On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 7:03 AM, Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2018-05-29 at 14:01 -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> >> Instead of adding the security_kernel_read_file LSM hook - or defining a
> >> wrapper for security_kernel_read_file LSM hook and adding it, or
> >> renaming the existing hook to security_kernel_read_data() and adding it
> >> - in places where the kernel isn't reading a file, this version of the
> >> patch set defines a new LSM hook named security_kernel_load_data().
> >>
> >> The new LSM hook does not replace the existing security_kernel_read_file
> >> LSM hook, which is still needed, but defines a new LSM hook allowing
> >> LSMs and IMA-appraisal the opportunity to fail loading userspace
> >> provided file/data.
> >>
> >> The only difference between the two LSM hooks is the LSM hook name and a
> >> file descriptor. Whether this is cause enough for requiring a new LSM
> >> hook, is left to the security community.
> >
> > Paul does not have a preference as to adding a new LSM hook or calling
> > the existing hook. Either way is fine, as long as both the new and
> > existing hooks call the existing function.
> >
> > Casey didn't like the idea of a wrapper.
> > James suggested renaming the LSM hook.
> >
> > The maintainers for the callers of the LSM hook prefer a meaningful
> > LSM hook name. The "null" argument is not as much of a concern. Only
> > Eric seems to be asking for a separate, new LSM hook, without the
> > "null" argument.
> >
> > Unless someone really objects, to accommodate Eric we'll define a new
> > LSM hook named security_kernel_load_data. Eric, are you planning on
> > Ack'ing patches 1 & 2?
>
> I'm sorry I'm late to review this series. Reading through what you
> have, it seems like the existing hook is fine. If the name has
> slipped, we can rename it, but I think adding another hook for the
> same logical action (loading something into the kernel) is confusing.
Personally I agree with Eric and prefer a new hook. I don't feel strongly
enough about it to keep bikeshedding, but since this set already exists,
it seems like the way to go.
> It seems that only patches needed are 2 & 4 (new hook callsites), 5, 6
> & 7 (IMA coverage and policy). 1 and 8 seem needless to me. If the
> objection is that isn't use on non-file objects, sure, rename it. But
> I don't see a _logical_ difference between the proposed and existing
> callsites. enum kernel_read_file_id covers the "type" already....
>
> -Kees
>
> --
> Kees Cook
> Pixel Security
_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-06-05 4:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 139+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-05-29 18:01 [PATCH v4 0/8] kexec/firmware: support system wide policy requiring signatures Mimi Zohar
2018-05-29 18:01 ` Mimi Zohar
2018-05-29 18:01 ` Mimi Zohar
2018-05-29 18:01 ` [PATCH v4 1/8] security: define new LSM hook named security_kernel_load_data Mimi Zohar
2018-05-29 18:01 ` Mimi Zohar
2018-05-29 18:01 ` Mimi Zohar
2018-06-04 19:59 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2018-06-04 19:59 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2018-06-04 19:59 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2018-05-29 18:01 ` [PATCH v4 2/8] kexec: add call to LSM hook in original kexec_load syscall Mimi Zohar
2018-05-29 18:01 ` Mimi Zohar
2018-05-29 18:01 ` Mimi Zohar
2018-06-04 20:00 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2018-06-04 20:00 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2018-06-04 20:00 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2018-05-29 18:01 ` [PATCH v4 3/8] ima: based on policy require signed kexec kernel images Mimi Zohar
2018-05-29 18:01 ` Mimi Zohar
2018-05-29 18:01 ` Mimi Zohar
2018-05-29 18:01 ` [PATCH v4 4/8] firmware: add call to LSM hook before firmware sysfs fallback Mimi Zohar
2018-05-29 18:01 ` Mimi Zohar
2018-05-29 18:01 ` Mimi Zohar
2018-06-01 18:19 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2018-06-01 18:19 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2018-06-01 18:19 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2018-05-29 18:01 ` [PATCH v4 5/8] ima: based on policy require signed firmware (sysfs fallback) Mimi Zohar
2018-05-29 18:01 ` Mimi Zohar
2018-05-29 18:01 ` Mimi Zohar
2018-06-01 18:21 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2018-06-01 18:21 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2018-06-01 18:21 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2018-06-01 22:39 ` Mimi Zohar
2018-06-01 22:39 ` Mimi Zohar
2018-06-01 22:39 ` Mimi Zohar
2018-06-01 22:39 ` Mimi Zohar
2018-06-01 22:46 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2018-06-01 22:46 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2018-06-01 22:46 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2018-06-01 22:46 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2018-06-01 23:04 ` Mimi Zohar
2018-06-01 23:04 ` Mimi Zohar
2018-06-01 23:04 ` Mimi Zohar
2018-06-01 23:04 ` Mimi Zohar
2018-05-29 18:01 ` [PATCH v4 6/8] ima: add build time policy Mimi Zohar
2018-05-29 18:01 ` Mimi Zohar
2018-05-29 18:01 ` Mimi Zohar
2018-05-29 18:01 ` [RFC PATCH v4 7/8] ima: based on policy prevent loading firmware (pre-allocated buffer) Mimi Zohar
2018-05-29 18:01 ` Mimi Zohar
2018-05-29 18:01 ` Mimi Zohar
2018-06-01 19:15 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2018-06-01 19:15 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2018-06-01 19:15 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2018-06-01 19:25 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2018-06-01 19:25 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2018-06-01 19:25 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2018-06-05 22:37 ` Kees Cook
2018-06-05 22:37 ` Kees Cook
2018-06-05 22:37 ` Kees Cook
2018-06-06 6:20 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2018-06-06 6:20 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2018-06-06 6:20 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2018-06-06 22:06 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2018-06-06 22:06 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2018-06-06 22:06 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2018-05-29 18:02 ` [PATCH v4 8/8] module: replace the existing LSM hook in init_module Mimi Zohar
2018-05-29 18:02 ` Mimi Zohar
2018-05-29 18:02 ` Mimi Zohar
2018-05-29 22:39 ` Paul Moore
2018-05-29 22:39 ` Paul Moore
2018-05-29 22:39 ` Paul Moore
2018-05-29 23:14 ` Mimi Zohar
2018-05-29 23:14 ` Mimi Zohar
2018-05-29 23:14 ` Mimi Zohar
2018-05-29 23:14 ` Mimi Zohar
2018-05-30 21:00 ` Paul Moore
2018-05-30 21:00 ` Paul Moore
2018-05-30 21:00 ` Paul Moore
2018-05-31 15:23 ` [PATCH v4a " Mimi Zohar
2018-05-31 15:23 ` Mimi Zohar
2018-05-31 15:23 ` Mimi Zohar
2018-06-01 22:28 ` Paul Moore
2018-06-01 22:28 ` Paul Moore
2018-06-01 22:28 ` Paul Moore
2018-06-04 9:19 ` Jessica Yu
2018-06-04 9:19 ` Jessica Yu
2018-06-04 9:19 ` Jessica Yu
2018-06-05 19:45 ` Kees Cook
2018-06-05 19:45 ` Kees Cook
2018-06-05 19:45 ` Kees Cook
2018-06-05 21:35 ` Mimi Zohar
2018-06-05 21:35 ` Mimi Zohar
2018-06-05 21:35 ` Mimi Zohar
2018-06-05 21:35 ` Mimi Zohar
2018-06-05 22:26 ` Kees Cook
2018-06-05 22:26 ` Kees Cook
2018-06-05 22:26 ` Kees Cook
2018-06-05 22:40 ` Mimi Zohar
2018-06-05 22:40 ` Mimi Zohar
2018-06-05 22:40 ` Mimi Zohar
2018-06-05 22:40 ` Mimi Zohar
2018-05-29 23:25 ` [PATCH v4 " Mimi Zohar
2018-05-29 23:25 ` Mimi Zohar
2018-05-29 23:25 ` Mimi Zohar
2018-05-29 23:25 ` Mimi Zohar
2018-05-30 2:25 ` Eric W. Biederman
2018-05-30 2:25 ` Eric W. Biederman
2018-05-30 2:25 ` Eric W. Biederman
2018-05-30 21:09 ` Paul Moore
2018-05-30 21:09 ` Paul Moore
2018-05-30 21:09 ` Paul Moore
2018-06-04 14:03 ` [PATCH v4 0/8] kexec/firmware: support system wide policy requiring signatures Mimi Zohar
2018-06-04 14:03 ` Mimi Zohar
2018-06-04 14:03 ` Mimi Zohar
2018-06-04 14:03 ` Mimi Zohar
2018-06-04 19:32 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2018-06-04 19:32 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2018-06-04 19:32 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2018-06-04 19:32 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2018-06-04 19:53 ` Mimi Zohar
2018-06-04 19:53 ` Mimi Zohar
2018-06-04 19:53 ` Mimi Zohar
2018-06-04 19:53 ` Mimi Zohar
2018-06-04 22:03 ` Kees Cook
2018-06-04 22:03 ` Kees Cook
2018-06-04 22:03 ` Kees Cook
2018-06-05 4:09 ` Serge E. Hallyn [this message]
2018-06-05 4:09 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2018-06-05 4:09 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2018-06-05 12:19 ` Kees Cook
2018-06-05 12:19 ` Kees Cook
2018-06-05 12:19 ` Kees Cook
2018-06-05 13:25 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2018-06-05 13:25 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2018-06-05 13:25 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2018-06-05 13:43 ` Kees Cook
2018-06-05 13:43 ` Kees Cook
2018-06-05 13:43 ` Kees Cook
2018-06-05 14:05 ` Mimi Zohar
2018-06-05 14:05 ` Mimi Zohar
2018-06-05 14:05 ` Mimi Zohar
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=20180605040920.GA19747@mail.hallyn.com \
--to=serge@hallyn.com \
--cc=andresx7@gmail.com \
--cc=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org \
--cc=casey@schaufler-ca.com \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=james.l.morris@oracle.com \
--cc=jeyu@kernel.org \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mcgrof@kernel.org \
--cc=paul@paul-moore.com \
--cc=zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.