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=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=unavailable 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 1C4ACC43381 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 11:01:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6CE4217F5 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 11:01:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729401AbfC2LBW (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Mar 2019 07:01:22 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:43794 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727675AbfC2LBW (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Mar 2019 07:01:22 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098420.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x2TAwWvp075028 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 07:01:20 -0400 Received: from e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.97]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2rhg9veme2-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 07:00:07 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 11:00:03 -0000 Received: from b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.194) by e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.131) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Fri, 29 Mar 2019 11:00:00 -0000 Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.61]) by b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x2TAxxR152625658 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 29 Mar 2019 10:59:59 GMT Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97E8A11C052; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 10:59:59 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 490F111C054; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 10:59:58 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [9.80.109.148]) by d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 10:59:58 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: Should mprotect(..., PROT_EXEC) be checked by IMA? From: Mimi Zohar To: Igor Zhbanov , Matthew Garrett , Kees Cook , Casey Schaufler , Stephen Smalley , Paul Moore , John Johansen Cc: linux-integrity , Jann Horn , linux-security-module Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2019 06:59:47 -0400 In-Reply-To: <92718382-8669-748f-10d8-02fa21225210@omprussia.ru> References: <1552945715.8658.299.camel@linux.ibm.com> <452752df-98f9-c361-878a-5df84ab36847@omprussia.ru> <1552994559.4899.26.camel@linux.ibm.com> <84145490-6f70-214f-8241-42d556590240@omprussia.ru> <1553015134.4899.82.camel@linux.ibm.com> <1553167318.4899.382.camel@linux.ibm.com> <07347317-ee71-83c1-384a-0c3439980af7@omprussia.ru> <1553793463.8711.26.camel@linux.ibm.com> <92718382-8669-748f-10d8-02fa21225210@omprussia.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.20.5 (3.20.5-1.fc24) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19032911-4275-0000-0000-00000321430A X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19032911-4276-0000-0000-00003830455D Message-Id: <1553857187.9420.49.camel@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-03-29_06:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=1 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=754 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1903290080 Sender: owner-linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: [Cc'ing the LSM mailing list and others] On Fri, 2019-03-29 at 13:00 +0300, Igor Zhbanov wrote: > Hi Mimi,On 28.03.2019 20:17, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > I just came across the grsecurity article on mprotect.[1] > > Has anyone looked at it? Would it make sense to make it a minor LSM? > > > > [1]https://pax.grsecurity.net/docs/mprotect.txt > > Interesting article. It is almost exactly of what I wanted to be implemented. > > If this minor LSM would be stackable to allow combining with e.g. SELinux > then why not. Stacking shouldn't be a problem.  Other LSMs are already on the mprotect hook.  Let's hear what others think. Mimi