Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] LSM: add SafeSetID module that gates setid calls

From: Micah Morton <mortonm@chromium.org>
To: James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
	Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
	Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>,
	linux-security-module <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] LSM: add SafeSetID module that gates setid calls
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 13:14:43 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJ-EccOp4zrVT2+RZQZn7j6RchVk5S7UxFjyOBF_6mpE-fHVPA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1901300424420.16638@namei.org>

testsuite meaning Linux Test Project / Autotest? We have a ChromeOS
Autotest for this already
(https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/third_party/autotest/+/master/client/site_tests/security_ProcessManagementPolicy/security_ProcessManagementPolicy.py)
but it would at least need some adaptation for configuring/flushing
policies during the test. Not sure how different Linux Autotests are
from ChromeOS, if they are used at all.

Also, could you point me at the directory that holds such test scripts
in the kernel tree? Shouldn't be too difficult to port that ChromeOS
autotest to a script if we want to go that route.

On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 9:25 AM James Morris <jmorris@namei.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019, Micah Morton wrote:
>
> > FWIW, I've now done a manual test of this LSMs functionality on a
> > Linux VM built from the next-general branch. Adding policies, policy
> > enforcement by the LSM, and flushing policies all worked as intended.
> >
> > So there hopefully won't be any more surprises.
>
> It would be useful to publish these as a testsuite, or include a test
> script in the kernel tree.
>
>
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 12:19 PM Micah Morton <mortonm@chromium.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 11:56 AM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 8:47 AM Micah Morton <mortonm@chromium.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm getting the following crash when booting after compiling a kernel
> > > > > with this LSM enabled, so I'll have to figure out what is going on.
> > > > > All the "core" functionality of this LSM has been tested thoroughly
> > > > > (we're already using this LSM on ChromeOS), but looks like there's
> > > > > some debugging of the initialization that still needs to be done.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > +DEFINE_LSM(safesetid_security_init) = {
> > > > +       .init = safesetid_security_init,
> > > > +};
> > > >
> > > > I think this is from not having:
> > > >
> > > > .name = "safesetid",
> > >
> > > That fixed it for me! Thanks
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I missed that in the review, sorry!
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Kees Cook
> >
>
> --
> James Morris
> <jmorris@namei.org>
>