From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kees Cook Subject: Re: [PATCH security-next v4 23/32] selinux: Remove boot parameter Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 09:35:27 -0700 Message-ID: References: <20181002005505.6112-1-keescook@chromium.org> <5955f5ce-b803-4f58-8b07-54c291e33da5@canonical.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: James Morris Cc: John Johansen , Jordan Glover , Stephen Smalley , Paul Moore , Casey Schaufler , Tetsuo Handa , "Schaufler, Casey" , linux-security-module , Jonathan Corbet , "open list:DOCUMENTATION" , linux-arch , LKML List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 9:58 PM, James Morris wrote: > On Thu, 4 Oct 2018, Kees Cook wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 10:49 AM, James Morris wrote: >> > On Wed, 3 Oct 2018, Kees Cook wrote: >> >> Then someone boots the system with: >> >> >> >> selinux=1 security=selinux >> >> >> >> In what order does selinux get initialized relative to yama? >> >> (apparmor, flagged as a "legacy major", would have been disabled by >> >> the "security=" not matching it.) >> > >> > It doesn't, it needs to be specified in one place. >> > >> > Distros will need to update boot parameter handling for this kernel >> > onwards. Otherwise, we will need to carry this confusing mess forward >> > forever. >> >> Are you saying that you want to overrule Paul and Stephen about >> keeping "selinux=1 secuiryt=selinux" working? > > Not overrule, but convince. > > At least, deprecate selinux=1 and security=X, but not extend it any > further. Okay, this is the expectation from me as well. I think my series makes it work as-is with the new stuff just fine. >> > In my most recent suggestion, there is no '!' disablement, just >> > enablement. If an LSM is not listed in CONFIG_LSM="", it's not enabled. >> >> And a user would need to specify ALL lsms on the "lsm=" line? >> > > Yes, the ones they want enabled. > >> What do you think of my latest proposal? It could happily work all >> three ways: old boot params and security= work ("selinux=1 >> security=selinux" keeps working), individual LSM enable/disable works >> ("lsm=+loadpin"), and full LSM ordering works >> ("lsm=each,lsm,in,order,here"): >> >> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAGXu5jJJit8bDNvgXaFkuvFPy7NWtJW2oRWFbG-6iWk0+A1qng@mail.gmail.com/ >> > > I think having something like +yama will still lead to confusion. > Explicitly stating each enabled LSM in order is totally unambiguous. > > If people are moving away from the distro defaults, and there is no > high-level interface to manage this, it seems to me there's a deeper > issue with the distro. Okay. I will adjust the series and send a v5. -Kees -- Kees Cook Pixel Security From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-yw1-f68.google.com ([209.85.161.68]:43965 "EHLO mail-yw1-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727798AbeJEXfD (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Oct 2018 19:35:03 -0400 Received: by mail-yw1-f68.google.com with SMTP id j75-v6so5476093ywj.10 for ; Fri, 05 Oct 2018 09:35:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yw1-f49.google.com (mail-yw1-f49.google.com. [209.85.161.49]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h13-v6sm4573936ywc.100.2018.10.05.09.35.29 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 05 Oct 2018 09:35:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yw1-f49.google.com with SMTP id d126-v6so5486532ywa.5 for ; Fri, 05 Oct 2018 09:35:29 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20181002005505.6112-1-keescook@chromium.org> <5955f5ce-b803-4f58-8b07-54c291e33da5@canonical.com> From: Kees Cook Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 09:35:27 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH security-next v4 23/32] selinux: Remove boot parameter Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: James Morris Cc: John Johansen , Jordan Glover , Stephen Smalley , Paul Moore , Casey Schaufler , Tetsuo Handa , "Schaufler, Casey" , linux-security-module , Jonathan Corbet , "open list:DOCUMENTATION" , linux-arch , LKML Message-ID: <20181005163527.Di9ojjUatF4s9tf4VvYNVmSQwkR5v8CLQYMfB1ZwLEg@z> On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 9:58 PM, James Morris wrote: > On Thu, 4 Oct 2018, Kees Cook wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 10:49 AM, James Morris wrote: >> > On Wed, 3 Oct 2018, Kees Cook wrote: >> >> Then someone boots the system with: >> >> >> >> selinux=1 security=selinux >> >> >> >> In what order does selinux get initialized relative to yama? >> >> (apparmor, flagged as a "legacy major", would have been disabled by >> >> the "security=" not matching it.) >> > >> > It doesn't, it needs to be specified in one place. >> > >> > Distros will need to update boot parameter handling for this kernel >> > onwards. Otherwise, we will need to carry this confusing mess forward >> > forever. >> >> Are you saying that you want to overrule Paul and Stephen about >> keeping "selinux=1 secuiryt=selinux" working? > > Not overrule, but convince. > > At least, deprecate selinux=1 and security=X, but not extend it any > further. Okay, this is the expectation from me as well. I think my series makes it work as-is with the new stuff just fine. >> > In my most recent suggestion, there is no '!' disablement, just >> > enablement. If an LSM is not listed in CONFIG_LSM="", it's not enabled. >> >> And a user would need to specify ALL lsms on the "lsm=" line? >> > > Yes, the ones they want enabled. > >> What do you think of my latest proposal? It could happily work all >> three ways: old boot params and security= work ("selinux=1 >> security=selinux" keeps working), individual LSM enable/disable works >> ("lsm=+loadpin"), and full LSM ordering works >> ("lsm=each,lsm,in,order,here"): >> >> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAGXu5jJJit8bDNvgXaFkuvFPy7NWtJW2oRWFbG-6iWk0+A1qng@mail.gmail.com/ >> > > I think having something like +yama will still lead to confusion. > Explicitly stating each enabled LSM in order is totally unambiguous. > > If people are moving away from the distro defaults, and there is no > high-level interface to manage this, it seems to me there's a deeper > issue with the distro. Okay. I will adjust the series and send a v5. -Kees -- Kees Cook Pixel Security