From: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
To: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
Cc: john.johansen@canonical.com, selinux@vger.kernel.org,
James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-audit@redhat.com,
casey.schaufler@intel.com, Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v20 02/23] LSM: Create and manage the lsmblob data structure.
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2020 17:50:01 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhQQh5q86Xki8vevDnHyhRRy8Jigxc_CCEOwcDvvFdnC6w@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200826145247.10029-3-casey@schaufler-ca.com>
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 11:03 AM Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote:
>
> When more than one security module is exporting data to
> audit and networking sub-systems a single 32 bit integer
> is no longer sufficient to represent the data. Add a
> structure to be used instead.
>
> The lsmblob structure is currently an array of
> u32 "secids". There is an entry for each of the
> security modules built into the system that would
> use secids if active. The system assigns the module
> a "slot" when it registers hooks. If modules are
> compiled in but not registered there will be unused
> slots.
>
> A new lsm_id structure, which contains the name
> of the LSM and its slot number, is created. There
> is an instance for each LSM, which assigns the name
> and passes it to the infrastructure to set the slot.
>
> The audit rules data is expanded to use an array of
> security module data rather than a single instance.
> Because IMA uses the audit rule functions it is
> affected as well.
>
> Acked-by: Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>
> Acked-by: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
> Signed-off-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
> ---
> include/linux/audit.h | 4 +-
> include/linux/lsm_hooks.h | 12 ++++-
> include/linux/security.h | 67 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> kernel/auditfilter.c | 24 +++++-----
> kernel/auditsc.c | 12 ++---
> security/apparmor/lsm.c | 7 ++-
> security/bpf/hooks.c | 12 ++++-
> security/commoncap.c | 7 ++-
> security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c | 40 +++++++++++-----
> security/loadpin/loadpin.c | 8 +++-
> security/lockdown/lockdown.c | 7 ++-
> security/safesetid/lsm.c | 8 +++-
> security/security.c | 72 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> security/selinux/hooks.c | 8 +++-
> security/smack/smack_lsm.c | 7 ++-
> security/tomoyo/tomoyo.c | 8 +++-
> security/yama/yama_lsm.c | 7 ++-
> 17 files changed, 254 insertions(+), 56 deletions(-)
...
> diff --git a/include/linux/security.h b/include/linux/security.h
> index 0a0a03b36a3b..c91389d7aebc 100644
> --- a/include/linux/security.h
> +++ b/include/linux/security.h
> @@ -131,6 +131,65 @@ enum lockdown_reason {
>
> extern const char *const lockdown_reasons[LOCKDOWN_CONFIDENTIALITY_MAX+1];
>
> +/*
> + * Data exported by the security modules
> + *
> + * Any LSM that provides secid or secctx based hooks must be included.
> + */
> +#define LSMBLOB_ENTRIES ( \
> + (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SECURITY_SELINUX) ? 1 : 0) + \
> + (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SECURITY_SMACK) ? 1 : 0) + \
> + (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR) ? 1 : 0) + \
> + (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_BPF_LSM) ? 1 : 0))
> +
> +struct lsmblob {
> + u32 secid[LSMBLOB_ENTRIES];
> +};
> +
> +#define LSMBLOB_INVALID -1 /* Not a valid LSM slot number */
> +#define LSMBLOB_NEEDED -2 /* Slot requested on initialization */
> +#define LSMBLOB_NOT_NEEDED -3 /* Slot not requested */
> +
> +/**
> + * lsmblob_init - initialize an lsmblob structure.
> + * @blob: Pointer to the data to initialize
> + * @secid: The initial secid value
> + *
> + * Set all secid for all modules to the specified value.
> + */
> +static inline void lsmblob_init(struct lsmblob *blob, u32 secid)
> +{
> + int i;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < LSMBLOB_ENTRIES; i++)
> + blob->secid[i] = secid;
> +}
As I'm going through the v20 draft of these patches it occurs to me,
at least in the intermediate patches, that there is a pretty common
pattern involving lsmblob_init():
lsmblob_init(blob, secid);
func(blob, ...);
... would it make sense to have lsmblob_init() return *blob instead of
void? It doesn't really matter too much, but it seems like it could
help cleanup some of the code:
func(lsmblob_init(blob, secid), ...);
--
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com
--
Linux-audit mailing list
Linux-audit@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-09-04 21:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 63+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20200826145247.10029-1-casey.ref@schaufler-ca.com>
2020-08-26 14:52 ` [PATCH v20 00/23] LSM: Module stacking for AppArmor Casey Schaufler
2020-08-26 14:52 ` [PATCH v20 01/23] LSM: Infrastructure management of the sock security Casey Schaufler
2020-08-26 14:52 ` [PATCH v20 02/23] LSM: Create and manage the lsmblob data structure Casey Schaufler
2020-09-04 21:50 ` Paul Moore [this message]
2020-08-26 14:52 ` [PATCH v20 03/23] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_audit_rule_match Casey Schaufler
2020-09-04 18:53 ` Paul Moore
2020-08-26 14:52 ` [PATCH v20 04/23] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_kernel_act_as Casey Schaufler
2020-09-04 19:46 ` Paul Moore
2020-08-26 14:52 ` [PATCH v20 05/23] net: Prepare UDS for security module stacking Casey Schaufler
2020-09-03 16:28 ` James Morris
2020-09-04 20:08 ` Paul Moore
2020-09-04 21:35 ` Casey Schaufler
2020-09-04 21:53 ` Paul Moore
2020-09-04 23:58 ` Casey Schaufler
2020-09-05 13:25 ` Paul Moore
2020-09-05 18:13 ` Casey Schaufler
2020-09-05 19:05 ` John Johansen
2020-09-08 1:28 ` Stephen Smalley
2020-09-08 13:35 ` Stephen Smalley
2020-09-08 23:37 ` Casey Schaufler
2020-09-09 0:21 ` John Johansen
2020-09-09 13:19 ` Stephen Smalley
2020-09-09 18:19 ` Casey Schaufler
2020-09-09 18:33 ` John Johansen
2020-09-09 18:47 ` John Johansen
2020-09-10 14:11 ` Paul Moore
2020-09-09 0:17 ` John Johansen
2020-08-26 14:52 ` [PATCH v20 06/23] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_secctx_to_secid Casey Schaufler
2020-09-04 21:29 ` Paul Moore
2020-08-26 14:52 ` [PATCH v20 07/23] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_secid_to_secctx Casey Schaufler
2020-09-04 21:59 ` Paul Moore
2020-08-26 14:52 ` [PATCH v20 08/23] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_ipc_getsecid Casey Schaufler
2020-09-05 13:12 ` Paul Moore
2020-08-26 14:52 ` [PATCH v20 09/23] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_task_getsecid Casey Schaufler
2020-09-05 13:18 ` Paul Moore
2020-08-26 14:52 ` [PATCH v20 10/23] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_inode_getsecid Casey Schaufler
2020-09-05 13:20 ` Paul Moore
2020-08-26 14:52 ` [PATCH v20 11/23] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_cred_getsecid Casey Schaufler
2020-08-26 14:52 ` [PATCH v20 12/23] IMA: Change internal interfaces to use lsmblobs Casey Schaufler
2020-09-06 2:28 ` Paul Moore
2020-08-26 14:52 ` [PATCH v20 13/23] LSM: Specify which LSM to display Casey Schaufler
2020-08-26 14:52 ` [PATCH v20 14/23] LSM: Ensure the correct LSM context releaser Casey Schaufler
2020-09-06 2:45 ` Paul Moore
2020-08-26 14:52 ` [PATCH v20 15/23] LSM: Use lsmcontext in security_secid_to_secctx Casey Schaufler
2020-08-26 14:52 ` [PATCH v20 16/23] LSM: Use lsmcontext in security_inode_getsecctx Casey Schaufler
2020-09-06 2:55 ` Paul Moore
2020-08-26 14:52 ` [PATCH v20 17/23] LSM: security_secid_to_secctx in netlink netfilter Casey Schaufler
2020-09-06 3:11 ` Paul Moore
2020-09-08 10:46 ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
2020-08-26 14:52 ` [PATCH v20 18/23] NET: Store LSM netlabel data in a lsmblob Casey Schaufler
2020-09-06 3:27 ` Paul Moore
2020-08-26 14:52 ` [PATCH v20 19/23] LSM: Verify LSM display sanity in binder Casey Schaufler
2020-09-06 3:30 ` Paul Moore
2020-08-26 14:52 ` [PATCH v20 20/23] Audit: Add new record for multiple process LSM attributes Casey Schaufler
2020-09-03 16:32 ` James Morris
2020-09-03 17:00 ` John Johansen
2020-09-03 21:49 ` Paul Moore
2020-09-06 16:32 ` Paul Moore
2020-08-26 14:52 ` [PATCH v20 21/23] Audit: Add a new record for multiple object " Casey Schaufler
2020-08-26 14:52 ` [PATCH v20 22/23] LSM: Add /proc attr entry for full LSM context Casey Schaufler
2020-08-26 18:02 ` Randy Dunlap
2020-08-26 14:52 ` [PATCH v20 23/23] AppArmor: Remove the exclusive flag Casey Schaufler
2020-08-26 15:27 ` [PATCH v20 00/23] LSM: Module stacking for AppArmor Casey Schaufler
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=CAHC9VhQQh5q86Xki8vevDnHyhRRy8Jigxc_CCEOwcDvvFdnC6w@mail.gmail.com \
--to=paul@paul-moore.com \
--cc=casey.schaufler@intel.com \
--cc=casey@schaufler-ca.com \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=john.johansen@canonical.com \
--cc=linux-audit@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sds@tycho.nsa.gov \
--cc=selinux@vger.kernel.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).