From: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>,
casey.schaufler@intel.com, jmorris@namei.org,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, selinux@vger.kernel.org
Cc: keescook@chromium.org, john.johansen@canonical.com,
penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp, paul@paul-moore.com,
sds@tycho.nsa.gov,
"linux-audit@redhat.com" <linux-audit@redhat.com>,
linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 26/25] Audit: Multiple LSM support in audit rules
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2020 11:40:13 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <e6945c33-a540-9d0a-ba71-3602b8e38154@schaufler-ca.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1578587607.5147.63.camel@linux.ibm.com>
On 1/9/2020 8:33 AM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> Hi Casey,
>
> On Fri, 2020-01-03 at 10:53 -0800, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>> With multiple possible security modules supporting audit rule
>> it is necessary to keep separate data for each module in the
>> audit rules. This affects IMA as well, as it re-uses the audit
>> rule list mechanisms.
> While reviewing this patch, I realized there was a bug in the base IMA
> code. With Janne's bug fix, that he just posted, I think this patch
> can now be simplified.
How and when do you plan to get Janne's fix in? It's looking like
stacking won't be in for 5.6.
> My main concern is the number of warning messages that will be
> generated. Any time a new LSM policy is loaded, the labels will be
> re-evaulated whether or not they are applicable to the particular LSM,
> causing unnecessary warnings.
Uhg.
>
> Mimi
>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>,
casey.schaufler@intel.com, jmorris@namei.org,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, selinux@vger.kernel.org
Cc: john.johansen@canonical.com,
"linux-audit@redhat.com" <linux-audit@redhat.com>,
linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, sds@tycho.nsa.gov
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 26/25] Audit: Multiple LSM support in audit rules
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2020 11:40:13 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <e6945c33-a540-9d0a-ba71-3602b8e38154@schaufler-ca.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1578587607.5147.63.camel@linux.ibm.com>
On 1/9/2020 8:33 AM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> Hi Casey,
>
> On Fri, 2020-01-03 at 10:53 -0800, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>> With multiple possible security modules supporting audit rule
>> it is necessary to keep separate data for each module in the
>> audit rules. This affects IMA as well, as it re-uses the audit
>> rule list mechanisms.
> While reviewing this patch, I realized there was a bug in the base IMA
> code. With Janne's bug fix, that he just posted, I think this patch
> can now be simplified.
How and when do you plan to get Janne's fix in? It's looking like
stacking won't be in for 5.6.
> My main concern is the number of warning messages that will be
> generated. Any time a new LSM policy is loaded, the labels will be
> re-evaulated whether or not they are applicable to the particular LSM,
> causing unnecessary warnings.
Uhg.
>
> Mimi
>
--
Linux-audit mailing list
Linux-audit@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-01-10 19:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 50+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20191224235939.7483-1-casey.ref@schaufler-ca.com>
2019-12-24 23:59 ` [PATCH v13 00/25] LSM: Module stacking for AppArmor Casey Schaufler
2019-12-24 23:59 ` [PATCH v13 01/25] LSM: Infrastructure management of the sock security Casey Schaufler
2019-12-24 23:59 ` [PATCH v13 02/25] LSM: Create and manage the lsmblob data structure Casey Schaufler
2019-12-25 20:34 ` Mickaël Salaün
2019-12-24 23:59 ` [PATCH v13 03/25] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_audit_rule_match Casey Schaufler
2019-12-31 13:13 ` Mimi Zohar
2020-01-02 23:36 ` Casey Schaufler
2019-12-24 23:59 ` [PATCH v13 04/25] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_kernel_act_as Casey Schaufler
2019-12-24 23:59 ` [PATCH v13 05/25] net: Prepare UDS for security module stacking Casey Schaufler
2019-12-24 23:59 ` [PATCH v13 06/25] Use lsmblob in security_secctx_to_secid Casey Schaufler
2020-01-07 17:45 ` Stephen Smalley
2019-12-24 23:59 ` [PATCH v13 07/25] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_secid_to_secctx Casey Schaufler
2019-12-24 23:59 ` [PATCH v13 08/25] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_ipc_getsecid Casey Schaufler
2019-12-24 23:59 ` [PATCH v13 09/25] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_task_getsecid Casey Schaufler
2020-01-07 17:53 ` Stephen Smalley
2019-12-24 23:59 ` [PATCH v13 10/25] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_inode_getsecid Casey Schaufler
2019-12-24 23:59 ` [PATCH v13 11/25] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_cred_getsecid Casey Schaufler
2019-12-24 23:59 ` [PATCH v13 12/25] IMA: Change internal interfaces to use lsmblobs Casey Schaufler
2019-12-24 23:59 ` [PATCH v13 13/25] LSM: Specify which LSM to display Casey Schaufler
2020-01-07 19:02 ` Stephen Smalley
2019-12-24 23:59 ` [PATCH v13 14/25] LSM: Ensure the correct LSM context releaser Casey Schaufler
2020-01-07 19:16 ` Stephen Smalley
2019-12-24 23:59 ` [PATCH v13 15/25] LSM: Use lsmcontext in security_secid_to_secctx Casey Schaufler
2020-01-06 16:15 ` Stephen Smalley
2019-12-24 23:59 ` [PATCH v13 16/25] LSM: Use lsmcontext in security_dentry_init_security Casey Schaufler
2020-01-07 19:23 ` Stephen Smalley
2019-12-24 23:59 ` [PATCH v13 17/25] LSM: Use lsmcontext in security_inode_getsecctx Casey Schaufler
2019-12-24 23:59 ` [PATCH v13 18/25] LSM: security_secid_to_secctx in netlink netfilter Casey Schaufler
2019-12-24 23:59 ` [PATCH v13 19/25] NET: Store LSM netlabel data in a lsmblob Casey Schaufler
2020-01-07 19:25 ` Stephen Smalley
2020-01-07 21:58 ` Casey Schaufler
2020-01-09 14:34 ` Stephen Smalley
2019-12-24 23:59 ` [PATCH v13 20/25] LSM: Verify LSM display sanity in binder Casey Schaufler
2019-12-24 23:59 ` [PATCH v13 21/25] Audit: Add subj_LSM fields when necessary Casey Schaufler
2019-12-24 23:59 ` [PATCH v13 22/25] Audit: Include object data for all security modules Casey Schaufler
2019-12-24 23:59 ` [PATCH v13 23/25] NET: Add SO_PEERCONTEXT for multiple LSMs Casey Schaufler
2020-01-06 17:15 ` Stephen Smalley
2020-01-06 17:29 ` Simon McVittie
2020-01-06 18:03 ` Casey Schaufler
2020-01-06 18:45 ` Stephen Smalley
2020-01-06 18:43 ` Stephen Smalley
2019-12-24 23:59 ` [PATCH 24/25] LSM: Add /proc attr entry for full LSM context Casey Schaufler
2020-01-06 16:22 ` Stephen Smalley
2019-12-24 23:59 ` [PATCH v13 25/25] AppArmor: Remove the exclusive flag Casey Schaufler
2020-01-03 18:53 ` [PATCH v13 26/25] Audit: Multiple LSM support in audit rules Casey Schaufler
2020-01-03 18:53 ` Casey Schaufler
2020-01-09 16:33 ` Mimi Zohar
2020-01-10 19:40 ` Casey Schaufler [this message]
2020-01-10 19:40 ` Casey Schaufler
2020-01-12 15:37 ` 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=e6945c33-a540-9d0a-ba71-3602b8e38154@schaufler-ca.com \
--to=casey@schaufler-ca.com \
--cc=casey.schaufler@intel.com \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=john.johansen@canonical.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-audit@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-integrity@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 \
--cc=selinux@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=zohar@linux.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.