linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
To: keescook@chromium.org
Cc: casey@schaufler-ca.com, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
	James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, selinux@tycho.nsa.gov,
	john.johansen@canonical.com, penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp,
	Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, adobriyan@gmail.com,
	casey.schaufler@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/10] LSM: Blob sharing support for S.A.R.A and LandLock
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2018 17:38:15 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhQwT4d3wC37cVrrX-hZq1L3e6=TEAse4m-YH9SiFnkieA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGXu5jKec1JTsoqwKGThcJoamdL618AHu4jfFbqqQiauz1kjyg@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 5:01 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 12:12 PM, Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> wrote:
> > None of the above deals with the user experience or support burden a
> > distro would have by forcing stacking on.  If we make it an option the
>
> Just to make sure we're clear here: this series does not provide
> "extreme" stacking: SELinux, AppArmor, and SMACK remain boot-exclusive
> no matter what the CONFIGs.
>
> > distros can choose for themselves; picking a kernel build config is
> > not something new to distros, and I think Casey's text adequately
> > explains CONFIG_SECURITY_STACKING in terms that would be sufficient.
>
> I absolutely want stacking to be configurable, but I want to point out
> that there is no operational difference between
> CONFIG_SECURITY_STACKING=n and CONFIG_SECURITY_STACKING=y in the code
> here:
>
> - all the new accessor and allocation code is exercised in both cases
>
> - with stacking enabled: selinux, apparmor, and smack have an offset
> of 0 into blobs (and only one can be enabled at a time)
>
> - with stacking disabled: selinux, apparmor, and smack have an offset
> of 0 into blobs (and only one can be enabled at a time)
>
> The only behavioral difference is TOMOYO:
>
> 1- with stacking disabled and TOMOYO as the only major LSM, it will
> have a 0 offset into blobs (like above)
>
> 2- with stacking enabled and TOMOYO as the only major LSM, it will
> have a 0 offset into blobs (like above)
>
> 3- with stacking disabled and another major LSM is enabled, TOMOYO
> will be disabled (like always)
>
> 4- with stacking enabled and another major LSM is enabled, TOMOYO will
> have a non-0 offset into blobs and will run after selinux or smack or
> run before apparmor (based on link ordering defined by the Makefile).

Case #3/#4 is what I'm getting at, and I would argue demonstrates an
operational difference that is user visible/configurable.

Unless something has changed and I missed it, you can currently build
all of the LSMs into a single kernel image, and the admin/user can
choose one at boot time.  CONFIG_SECURITY_STACKING=y enables the
admin/user to stack LSMs (albeit with restrictions in the current
iteration) and CONFIG_SECURITY_STACKING=n limits the admin/user to a
single LSM (what we have now).  I understand that as of this moment we
are talking only about TOMOYO and AppArmor/Smack/SELinux, but everyone
knows that S.A.R.A/SARA and LandLock are going to follow shortly -
that's the whole point of this latest spin, isn't it?

> > I currently have a neutral stance on stacking, making it mandatory
> > pushes me more towards a "no".
>
> This is why I'm trying to explain myself: the infrastructure proposed
> here is always exercised, no matter the CONFIG. From that sense it is
> "mandatory" no matter what the config is. There isn't a reality where
> you could "turn off stacking", because it's not stacking until you
> actually stack something, and that will be disabled by default as I've
> proposed it.
>
> Let me put this another way: if we simply leave off patch 10, we can
> take the other 9 patches (modulo feedback), and we only have to decide
> how to expose "stacking"; all the infrastructure work for supporting
> it is done.
>
> I'm arguing that "security=" is likely insufficient to describe what
> we want, and instead we should focus on individual LSM enablement via
> parameters ("tomoyo.enabled=1"). If _ordering_ becomes an issue, we
> could either use parameter order, or use "security=" again maybe, but
> for now, ordering is already defined by the Makefile (and
> security/security.c).

The infrastructure bits aren't really my concern; in fact I *like*
that the infrastructure is always exercised, it makes
testing/debugging easier.  I also like the ability to limit the
user/admin to one LSM at boot time to make support easier; my goal is
to allow a distro to build support for multiple LSMs without also
requiring that distro to support *stacked* LSMs (see my earlier
comments about the difficulty in determining the source of a failed
operation).

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com

  reply	other threads:[~2018-09-14  2:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 56+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-09-11 16:26 [PATCH v2 00/10] LSM: Module stacking in support of S.A.R.A and Landlock Casey Schaufler
2018-09-11 16:41 ` [PATCH 01/10] procfs: add smack subdir to attrs Casey Schaufler
2018-09-12 22:57   ` Kees Cook
2018-09-11 16:41 ` [PATCH 02/10] Smack: Abstract use of cred security blob Casey Schaufler
2018-09-12 23:04   ` Kees Cook
2018-09-11 16:41 ` [PATCH 03/10] SELinux: " Casey Schaufler
2018-09-12 23:10   ` Kees Cook
2018-09-11 16:41 ` [PATCH 04/10] LSM: Infrastructure management of the " Casey Schaufler
2018-09-12 23:53   ` Kees Cook
2018-09-13 19:01     ` Casey Schaufler
2018-09-13 21:12       ` Kees Cook
2018-09-11 16:41 ` [PATCH 05/10] SELinux: Abstract use of file " Casey Schaufler
2018-09-12 23:54   ` Kees Cook
2018-09-11 16:42 ` [PATCH 06/10] LSM: Infrastructure management of the " Casey Schaufler
2018-09-13  0:00   ` Kees Cook
2018-09-11 16:42 ` [PATCH 07/10] SELinux: Abstract use of inode " Casey Schaufler
2018-09-13  0:23   ` Kees Cook
2018-09-11 16:42 ` [PATCH 08/10] Smack: " Casey Schaufler
2018-09-13  0:24   ` Kees Cook
2018-09-11 16:42 ` [PATCH 09/10] LSM: Infrastructure management of the inode security Casey Schaufler
2018-09-13  0:30   ` Kees Cook
2018-09-11 16:42 ` [PATCH 10/10] LSM: Blob sharing support for S.A.R.A and LandLock Casey Schaufler
2018-09-13  4:19   ` Kees Cook
2018-09-13 13:16     ` Paul Moore
2018-09-13 15:19       ` Kees Cook
2018-09-13 19:12         ` Paul Moore
2018-09-13 20:58           ` Jordan Glover
2018-09-13 21:50             ` Paul Moore
2018-09-13 22:04               ` Jordan Glover
2018-09-13 23:01               ` Casey Schaufler
2018-09-13 21:01           ` Kees Cook
2018-09-13 21:38             ` Paul Moore [this message]
2018-09-13 21:51               ` Kees Cook
2018-09-13 23:06                 ` Kees Cook
2018-09-13 23:32                   ` John Johansen
2018-09-13 23:51                     ` Kees Cook
2018-09-14  0:03                       ` Casey Schaufler
2018-09-14  0:06                         ` Kees Cook
2018-09-13 23:51                   ` Casey Schaufler
2018-09-13 23:57                     ` Kees Cook
2018-09-14  0:08                       ` Casey Schaufler
2018-09-14  0:19                         ` Kees Cook
2018-09-14 15:57                           ` Casey Schaufler
2018-09-14 20:05                             ` Kees Cook
2018-09-14 20:47                               ` Casey Schaufler
2018-09-14 18:18                         ` James Morris
2018-09-14 18:23                           ` John Johansen
2018-09-14  0:03                     ` Kees Cook
2018-09-14  2:42                 ` Paul Moore
2018-09-11 20:43 ` [PATCH v2 00/10] LSM: Module stacking in support of S.A.R.A and Landlock James Morris
2018-09-12 21:29 ` James Morris
2018-09-16 16:54   ` Salvatore Mesoraca
2018-09-16 17:25     ` Casey Schaufler
2018-09-16 17:45       ` Salvatore Mesoraca
2018-09-18  7:44   ` Mickaël Salaün
2018-09-18 15:23     ` 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='CAHC9VhQwT4d3wC37cVrrX-hZq1L3e6=TEAse4m-YH9SiFnkieA@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=paul@paul-moore.com \
    --cc=adobriyan@gmail.com \
    --cc=casey.schaufler@intel.com \
    --cc=casey@schaufler-ca.com \
    --cc=jmorris@namei.org \
    --cc=john.johansen@canonical.com \
    --cc=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp \
    --cc=sds@tycho.nsa.gov \
    --cc=selinux@tycho.nsa.gov \
    /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).