From: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
To: Nicolas Iooss <nicolas.iooss@m4x.org>
Cc: "Mickaël Salaün" <mic@digikod.net>,
"James Morris" <jmorris@namei.org>,
"Serge E . Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
"Kees Cook" <keescook@chromium.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
"Mickaël Salaün" <mic@linux.microsoft.com>,
"Casey Schaufler" <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] security: Add CONFIG_LSM_AUTO to handle default LSM stack ordering
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2021 14:46:24 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3b97e25b-303c-d732-3e5d-f1b1a446e090@schaufler-ca.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJfZ7=n5FOxHXMLRrDQ3F-kDqbYngNoYKcz6_PWi1rPa0_8WpA@mail.gmail.com>
On 2/22/2021 1:12 PM, Nicolas Iooss wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 9:32 PM Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote:
>> On 2/22/2021 10:31 AM, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
>>> On 22/02/2021 17:51, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>>>> On 2/22/2021 7:06 AM, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
>>>>> From: Mickaël Salaün <mic@linux.microsoft.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Add a new option CONFIG_LSM_AUTO to enable users to delegate default LSM
>>>>> stacking order to kernel developers. This enable to keep a consistent
>>>>> order of enabled LSM when changing the LSM selection, especially when a
>>>>> new LSM is added to the kernel.
>>>> TL;DR - NAK
>>>>
>>>> Do you think that we might have considered this when stacking was
>>>> introduced?
>>> I didn't dig the detailed history of LSM stacking, but you are in Cc
>>> because I know that you know. I may have though that the main goal of
>>> the current LSM stacking implementation was to enable to stack existing
>>> LSMs, which works well with this CONFIG_LSM list, but doesn't work as
>>> well for new LSMs.
>> It works just fine for new LSMs if you treat them as significant
>> features which may have significant impact on the behavior of the
>> system.
>>
>>>> Did you even consider the implications before sending
>>>> the patch?
>>> Yes, and it doesn't change much the current behavior without user
>>> interaction. However, it gives the choice to users to choose how they
>>> want their configuration to evolve.
>> Automatic inclusions of new LSMs would be counter to existing practice.
>> It won't work for "major" LSMs.
>>
>>
>>>> This only makes any sense if you want to compile in
>>>> AppArmor and/or Smack but always use SELinux. The existing Kconfig
>>>> model handles that perfectly well.
>>> This patch series doesn't change this behavior if the user doesn't want
>>> it to change.
>> Well, there's the question. If a distribution/system uses the new scheme
>> "users" are going to get new LSMs spontaniously. If they don't it's up to
>> the "user". Unsophisticated users won't want this, and the others don't
>> need it.
> Hello, sorry if I missed something simple but I did not understand
> what "Automatic inclusions of new LSMs " and "get new LSMs
> spontaniously" is about. If I understood the kernel practice
> development correctly, when a new LSM will be included, it will have a
> dedicated "config SECURITY_MYNEWLSM" which will be default to "n" in
> order to respect the "principle of least astonishment". How could such
> a new LSM be automatically/spontaneously added to the LSM list?
It wouldn't. But compiling the new LSM mynewlsm doesn't add it to
the list, either. Today no one should expect a LSM to be active if
it hasn't been added to the CONFIG_LSM list. The proposed addition
of CONFIG_LSM_AUTO would change that. "make oldconfig" would add
security modules that are built to the list. This is unnecessary
since whoever changed CONFIG_SECURITY_MYNEWLSM to "y" could easily
have added it to CONFIG_LSM. In the right place.
> I understand that this is a tough issue and that the subject might
> have been discussed a few years ago, and if that's the case, it would
> be nice to have pointers to some clear documentation or past emails
> (and it would be very very nice if the kernel documentation was
> updated to document the current state of LSM stacking:
I'm not going to argue against that.
> for example
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v5.11/admin-guide/LSM/index.html still
> documents the "security=" kernel parameter even though it conflicts
> with CONFIG_LSM and can be ignored by the kernel in practise).
You can still select one "major" module using security= if you
don't use lsm= to specify a full list. We put real effort into
being backward compatible.
>
> Thanks,
> Nicolas
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-02-22 22:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-02-22 15:06 [PATCH v3 0/1] Automatic LSM stack ordering Mickaël Salaün
2021-02-22 15:06 ` [PATCH v3 1/1] security: Add CONFIG_LSM_AUTO to handle default " Mickaël Salaün
2021-02-22 16:51 ` Casey Schaufler
2021-02-22 18:31 ` Mickaël Salaün
2021-02-22 20:31 ` Casey Schaufler
2021-02-22 21:12 ` Nicolas Iooss
2021-02-22 22:46 ` Casey Schaufler [this message]
2021-02-23 6:21 ` Nicolas Iooss
2022-10-17 19:25 ` Kees Cook
2022-10-18 1:45 ` Paul Moore
2022-10-18 5:55 ` Kees Cook
2022-10-18 19:31 ` Paul Moore
2022-11-04 16:29 ` Mickaël Salaün
2022-11-04 17:20 ` Casey Schaufler
2022-11-07 12:35 ` Mickaël Salaün
2022-11-07 17:21 ` Casey Schaufler
2022-11-07 19:37 ` Mickaël Salaün
2022-10-20 16:00 ` 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=3b97e25b-303c-d732-3e5d-f1b1a446e090@schaufler-ca.com \
--to=casey@schaufler-ca.com \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mic@digikod.net \
--cc=mic@linux.microsoft.com \
--cc=nicolas.iooss@m4x.org \
--cc=serge@hallyn.com \
/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).