From: Jordan Glover <Golden_Miller83@protonmail.ch>
To: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Cc: "keescook@chromium.org" <keescook@chromium.org>,
"casey@schaufler-ca.com" <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
"linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org"
<linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"selinux@tycho.nsa.gov" <selinux@tycho.nsa.gov>,
"john.johansen@canonical.com" <john.johansen@canonical.com>,
"penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp"
<penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>,
Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>,
"linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
"casey.schaufler@intel.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 20:58:48 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <tb3zfQ7fac9Oth8YArOo84SbMfqV1s0DjOmVy7op90J_o1XOaEjflZloOpj9PIiUQRhKJxhauXzJD3irkSSjOXK94qYlfQ1frIQiH1OTWPQ=@protonmail.ch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHC9VhQ20tBAMwOJ9mg0tBHYUoxjh0Szr3d62HuPw2SyT4XDLw@mail.gmail.com>
On Thursday, September 13, 2018 9:12 PM, Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 11:19 AM Kees Cook keescook@chromium.org wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 6:16 AM, Paul Moore paul@paul-moore.com wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 12:19 AM Kees Cook keescook@chromium.org wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 9:42 AM, Casey Schaufler casey@schaufler-ca.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Two proposed security modules require the ability to
> > > > > share security blobs with existing "major" security modules.
> > > > > These modules, S.A.R.A and LandLock, provide significantly
> > > > > different services than SELinux, Smack or AppArmor. Using
> > > > > either in conjunction with the existing modules is quite
> > > > > reasonable. S.A.R.A requires access to the cred blob, while
> > > > > LandLock uses the cred, file and inode blobs.
> > > > > The use of the cred, file and inode blobs has been
> > > > > abstracted in preceding patches in the series. This
> > > > > patch teaches the affected security modules how to access
> > > > > the part of the blob set aside for their use in the case
> > > > > where blobs are shared. The configuration option
> > > > > CONFIG_SECURITY_STACKING identifies systems where the
> > > > > blobs may be shared.
> > > > > The mechanism for selecting which security modules are
> > > > > active has been changed to allow non-conflicting "major"
> > > > > security modules to be used together. At this time the
> > > > > TOMOYO module can safely be used with any of the others.
> > > > > The two new modules would be non-conflicting as well.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Casey Schaufler casey@schaufler-ca.com
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Documentation/admin-guide/LSM/index.rst | 14 +++--
> > > > > include/linux/lsm_hooks.h | 2 +-
> > > > > security/Kconfig | 81 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > security/apparmor/include/cred.h | 8 +++
> > > > > security/apparmor/include/file.h | 9 ++-
> > > > > security/apparmor/include/lib.h | 4 ++
> > > > > security/apparmor/lsm.c | 8 ++-
> > > > > security/security.c | 30 ++++++++-
> > > > > security/selinux/hooks.c | 3 +-
> > > > > security/selinux/include/objsec.h | 18 +++++-
> > > > > security/smack/smack.h | 19 +++++-
> > > > > security/smack/smack_lsm.c | 17 +++---
> > > > > security/tomoyo/common.h | 12 +++-
> > > > > security/tomoyo/tomoyo.c | 3 +-
> > > > > 14 files changed, 200 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > > diff --git a/security/Kconfig b/security/Kconfig
> > > > > index 22f7664c4977..ed48025ae9e0 100644
> > > > > --- a/security/Kconfig
> > > > > +++ b/security/Kconfig
> > > > > @@ -36,6 +36,28 @@ config SECURITY_WRITABLE_HOOKS
> > > > > bool
> > > > > default n
> > > > > +config SECURITY_STACKING
> > > > >
> > > > > - bool "Security module stacking"
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > - depends on SECURITY
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > - help
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > - Allows multiple major security modules to be stacked.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > - Modules are invoked in the order registered with a
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > - "bail on fail" policy, in which the infrastructure
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > - will stop processing once a denial is detected. Not
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > - all modules can be stacked. SELinux, Smack and AppArmor are
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > - known to be incompatible. User space components may
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > - have trouble identifying the security module providing
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > - data in some cases.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -
> > > > > - If you select this option you will have to select which
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > - of the stackable modules you wish to be active. The
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > - "Default security module" will be ignored. The boot line
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > - "security=" option can be used to specify that one of
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > - the modules identifed for stacking should be used instead
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > - of the entire stack.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -
> > > > > - If you are unsure how to answer this question, answer N.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I don't see a good reason to make this a config. Why shouldn't this
> > > > always be enabled?
> > >
> > > I do. From a user perspective it is sometimes difficult to determine
> > > the reason behind a failed operation; its is a DAC based denial, the
> > > LSM, or some other failure? Stacking additional LSMs has the
> > > potential to make this worse. The boot time configuration adds to the
> > > complexity.
> >
> > Let me try to convince you otherwise. :) The reason I think there's no
> > need for this is because the only functional change here is how
> > TOMOYO gets stacked. And in my proposal, we can convert TOMOYO to be
> > enabled/disabled like LoadPin. Given the configs I showed, stacking
> > TOMOYO with the other major LSMs becomes a config (and/or boottime)
> > option.
> > The changes for TOMOYO are still needed even with SECURITY_STACKING,
> > and I argue that the other major LSMs remain the same. It's only
> > infrastructure that has changed. So, I think having SECURITY_STACKING
> > actually makes things more complex internally (all the ifdefs, weird
> > enable logic) and for distros ("what's this stacking option", etc?)
>
> 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
> 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.
CONFIG_SECURITY_STACKING doesn't make any user visible changes on
itself as it doesn't automatically enable any new LSM. The LSM
specific configs are place where users/distros make decisions. If
there is only one LSM enabled to run then there's nothing to stack.
If someone choose to run two or more LSM in config/boot cmdline
then we can assume having it stacked is what they wanted. As Kees
pointed there is already CONFIG_SECURITY_DEFAULT_XXX. In both cases
CONFIG_SECURITY_STACKING is redundant and only adds burden instead
of removing it.
> I currently have a neutral stance on stacking, making it mandatory
> pushes me more towards a "no".
>
This implies that your real concern is something else than
CONFIG_SECURITY_STACKING which only allows you to ignore the whole
thing. Please reveal it. There are a lot of people waiting for LSM
stacking which is several years late and it would be great to
resolve potential issues earlier rather later.
> As far as the cpp ifdef's, and other conditionals are concerned, I
> remain unconvinced this is any worse than any other significant
> feature that is a build time option.
>
> paul moore
Jordan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-09-14 2:20 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 [this message]
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
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='tb3zfQ7fac9Oth8YArOo84SbMfqV1s0DjOmVy7op90J_o1XOaEjflZloOpj9PIiUQRhKJxhauXzJD3irkSSjOXK94qYlfQ1frIQiH1OTWPQ=@protonmail.ch' \
--to=golden_miller83@protonmail.ch \
--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=paul@paul-moore.com \
--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).