From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-yb1-f194.google.com ([209.85.219.194]:35581 "EHLO mail-yb1-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725878AbeJBGK0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Oct 2018 02:10:26 -0400 Received: by mail-yb1-f194.google.com with SMTP id o63-v6so48125yba.2 for ; Mon, 01 Oct 2018 16:30:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yw1-f50.google.com (mail-yw1-f50.google.com. [209.85.161.50]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e187-v6sm3267265ywb.106.2018.10.01.16.30.10 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 01 Oct 2018 16:30:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yw1-f50.google.com with SMTP id m127-v6so50685ywb.0 for ; Mon, 01 Oct 2018 16:30:10 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <9b3e1733-7cfa-5047-1422-0f9d92d88d39@canonical.com> References: <20180925001832.18322-1-keescook@chromium.org> <20180925001832.18322-19-keescook@chromium.org> <68e4e323-3216-7e77-2807-c3207126ae68@canonical.com> <9b3e1733-7cfa-5047-1422-0f9d92d88d39@canonical.com> From: Kees Cook Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2018 16:30:08 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH security-next v3 18/29] LSM: Introduce lsm.enable= and lsm.disable= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: John Johansen Cc: Paul Moore , James Morris , Casey Schaufler , Tetsuo Handa , Stephen Smalley , "Schaufler, Casey" , LSM , Jonathan Corbet , "open list:DOCUMENTATION" , linux-arch , LKML Message-ID: <20181001233008.eYoN-E5ee04X4pOdAf9qSPV6Mi_Cpqt-I2V9nj2Soxk@z> On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 3:48 PM, John Johansen wrote: > On 10/01/2018 03:27 PM, Kees Cook wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 2:46 PM, John Johansen >> wrote: >>> On 09/24/2018 05:18 PM, Kees Cook wrote: >>>> This introduces the "lsm.enable=..." and "lsm.disable=..." boot parameters >>>> which each can contain a comma-separated list of LSMs to enable or >>>> disable, respectively. The string "all" matches all LSMs. >>>> >>>> This has very similar functionality to the existing per-LSM enable >>>> handling ("apparmor.enabled=...", etc), but provides a centralized >>>> place to perform the changes. These parameters take precedent over any >>>> LSM-specific boot parameters. >>>> >>>> Disabling an LSM means it will not be considered when performing >>>> initializations. Enabling an LSM means either undoing a previous >>>> LSM-specific boot parameter disabling or a undoing a default-disabled >>>> CONFIG setting. >>>> >>>> For example: "lsm.disable=apparmor apparmor.enabled=1" will result in >>>> AppArmor being disabled. "selinux.enabled=0 lsm.enable=selinux" will >>>> result in SELinux being enabled. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook >>> >>> I don't like this. It brings about conflicting kernel params that are >>> bound to confuse users. Its pretty easy for a user to understand that >>> when they specify a parameter manually at boot, that it overrides the >>> build time default. But conflicting kernel parameters are a lot harder >>> to deal with. >>> >>> I prefer a plain enabled= list being an override of the default build >>> time value. Where conflicts with LSM-specific configs always result in >>> the LSM being disabled with a complaint about the conflict. >>> >>> Though I have yet to be convinced its worth the cost, I do recognize >>> it is sometimes convenient to disable a single LSM, instead of typing >>> in a whole list of what to enable. If we have to have conflicting >>> kernel parameters I would prefer that the conflict throw up a warning >>> and leaving the LSM with the conflicting config disabled. >> >> Alright, let's drill down a bit more. I thought I had all the >> requirements sorted out here. :) >> >> AppArmor and SELinux are "special" here in that they have both: >> >> - CONFIG for enable-ness >> - boot param for enable-ness >> >> Now, the way this worked in the past was that combined with >> CONFIG_DEFAULT_SECURITY and the link-time ordering, this resulted in a >> way to get the LSM enabled, skipped, etc. But it was highly CONFIG >> dependent. >> >> SELinux does: >> >> #ifdef CONFIG_SECURITY_SELINUX_BOOTPARAM >> int selinux_enabled = CONFIG_SECURITY_SELINUX_BOOTPARAM_VALUE; >> >> static int __init selinux_enabled_setup(char *str) >> { >> unsigned long enabled; >> if (!kstrtoul(str, 0, &enabled)) >> selinux_enabled = enabled ? 1 : 0; >> return 1; >> } >> __setup("selinux=", selinux_enabled_setup); >> #else >> int selinux_enabled = 1; >> #endif >> ... >> if (!security_module_enable("selinux")) { >> selinux_enabled = 0; >> return 0; >> } >> >> if (!selinux_enabled) { >> pr_info("SELinux: Disabled at boot.\n"); >> return 0; >> } >> >> >> AppArmor does: >> >> /* Boot time disable flag */ >> static bool apparmor_enabled = CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR_BOOTPARAM_VALUE; >> module_param_named(enabled, apparmor_enabled, bool, S_IRUGO); >> >> static int __init apparmor_enabled_setup(char *str) >> { >> unsigned long enabled; >> int error = kstrtoul(str, 0, &enabled); >> if (!error) >> apparmor_enabled = enabled ? 1 : 0; >> return 1; >> } >> >> __setup("apparmor=", apparmor_enabled_setup); >> ... >> if (!apparmor_enabled || !security_module_enable("apparmor")) { >> aa_info_message("AppArmor disabled by boot time parameter"); >> apparmor_enabled = false; >> return 0; >> } >> >> >> Smack and TOMOYO each do: >> >> if (!security_module_enable("smack")) >> return 0; >> >> if (!security_module_enable("tomoyo")) >> return 0; >> >> >> Capability, Integrity, Yama, and LoadPin always run init. (This series >> fixes LoadPin to separate enable vs enforce, so we can ignore its >> "enable" setting, which isn't an "am I active?" boolean -- its init >> was always run.) With the enable logic is lifted out of the LSMs, we >> want to have "implicit enable" for 6 of 8 of the LSMs. (Which is why I >> had originally suggested CONFIG_LSM_DISABLE, since the normal state is >> enabled.) But given your feedback, I made this "implicit disable" and >> added CONFIG_LSM_ENABLE instead. (For which "CONFIG_LSM_ENABLE=all" >> gets the same results.) >> >> >> I think, then, the first question (mainly for you and Paul) is: >> >> Should we remove CONFIG_SECURITY_SELINUX_BOOTPARAM_VALUE and >> CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR_BOOTPARAM_VALUE in favor of only >> CONFIG_LSM_ENABLE? >> > > We can remove the Kconfig for the apparmor bootparam value. In fact I > will attach that patch below. I can't get rid of the parameter as it > is part of the userspace api. There are tools and applications > checking /sys/module/apparmor/parameters/enabled > > but we can certainly default it to enabled and make it work only as a > runtime kernel parameter to disable apparmor which is how it has been > traditionally been used. > >> The answer will affect the next question: what should be done with the >> boot parameters? AppArmor has two ways to change enablement: >> apparmor=0/1 and apparmor.enabled=0/1. SELinux just has selinux=0/1. >> Should those be removed in favor of "lsm.enable=..."? (And if they're >> not removed, how do people imagine they should interact?) > > I am not against removing the apparmor one, it does mean retraining > users but it is seldmon used so it may be worth dropping. If we keep > it, it should be a disable only flag that where the use of apparmor=0 > or apparmor.enable=0 (same thing) means apparmor is disabled. If we keep it, "apparmor=0 lsm_enable=apparmor" would mean it's enabled. Is that okay? > --- > > commit 367b8a47105c68fa170bdd14b0204555eb930476 > Author: John Johansen > Date: Mon Oct 1 15:46:02 2018 -0700 > > apparmor: remove apparmor boot param config > > The boot param value is only ever used as a means to disable apparmor. > Get rid of the Kconfig and a default the parameter to true. > > Signed-off-by: John Johansen > > diff --git a/security/apparmor/Kconfig b/security/apparmor/Kconfig > index b6b68a7750ce..3de21f46c82a 100644 > --- a/security/apparmor/Kconfig > +++ b/security/apparmor/Kconfig > @@ -14,22 +14,6 @@ config SECURITY_APPARMOR > > If you are unsure how to answer this question, answer N. > > -config SECURITY_APPARMOR_BOOTPARAM_VALUE > - int "AppArmor boot parameter default value" > - depends on SECURITY_APPARMOR > - range 0 1 > - default 1 > - help > - This option sets the default value for the kernel parameter > - 'apparmor', which allows AppArmor to be enabled or disabled > - at boot. If this option is set to 0 (zero), the AppArmor > - kernel parameter will default to 0, disabling AppArmor at > - boot. If this option is set to 1 (one), the AppArmor > - kernel parameter will default to 1, enabling AppArmor at > - boot. > - > - If you are unsure how to answer this question, answer 1. > - > config SECURITY_APPARMOR_HASH > bool "Enable introspection of sha1 hashes for loaded profiles" > depends on SECURITY_APPARMOR > diff --git a/security/apparmor/lsm.c b/security/apparmor/lsm.c > index f09fea0b4db7..8e83ee52a0a3 100644 > --- a/security/apparmor/lsm.c > +++ b/security/apparmor/lsm.c > @@ -1303,7 +1303,7 @@ bool aa_g_paranoid_load = true; > module_param_named(paranoid_load, aa_g_paranoid_load, aabool, S_IRUGO); > > /* Boot time disable flag */ > -static bool apparmor_enabled = CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR_BOOTPARAM_VALUE; > +static bool apparmor_enabled = true; In the new world, this wouldn't be "= true" since its state would be controlled by CONFIG_LSM_ENABLE (and lsm.enable=...). Is that okay? > module_param_named(enabled, apparmor_enabled, bool, S_IRUGO); > > static int __init apparmor_enabled_setup(char *str) I'll add this to the series, thanks! -Kees -- Kees Cook Pixel Security