Re: [PATCH v4 next 1/3] modules:capabilities: allow __request_module() to take a capability argument

From: Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@gmail.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@google.com>
Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
	"David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Jessica Yu <jeyu@redhat.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Network Development <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-security-module <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
	"kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com"
	<kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	James Morris <james.l.morris@oracle.com>,
	Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>,
	Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>, Dongsu Park <dpar>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 next 1/3] modules:capabilities: allow __request_module() to take a capability argument
Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2017 08:31:05 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAEiveUdQzHjG0OSvG=63PBOmjL19f5-qM8Fap51xSM5eDUcihw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGXu5jJPk5a_66FpMd6D-XdWyzD7sxCPQirz1C6_hEFu4qsP5g@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Kees,

On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 9:10 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@google.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 7:56 AM, Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@gmail.com> wrote:
...
>
>> BTW Kees, also in next version I won't remove the
>> capable(CAP_NET_ADMIN) check from [1]
>> even if there is the new request_module_cap(), I would like it to be
>> in a different patches, this way we go incremental
>> and maybe it is better to merge what we have now ?  and follow up
>> later, and of course if other maintainers agree too!
>
> Yes, incremental. I would suggest first creating the API changes to
> move a basic require_cap test into the LSM (which would drop the
> open-coded capable() checks in the net code), and then add the
> autoload logic in the following patches. That way the "infrastructure"
> changes happen separately and do not change any behaviors, but moves
> the caps test down where its wanted in the LSM, before then augmenting
> the logic.
>
>> I just need a bit of free time to check again everything and will send
>> a v5 with all requested changes.
>
> Great, thank you!
>

So sorry was busy these last months, I picked it again, will send v5 after the
merge window.

Kees I am looking on a way to integrate a test for it, we should use
something like
the example here [1] or maybe something else ? and which module to use ?

I still did not sort this out, if anyone has some suggestions, thank
you in advance!

[1] http://openwall.com/lists/kernel-hardening/2017/05/22/7

-- 
tixxdz