linux-security-module.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jordan Glover <Golden_Miller83@protonmail.ch>
To: John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
	Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
	Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>,
	Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>,
	Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
	LSM <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
	"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH security-next v5 00/30] LSM: Explict ordering
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 11:31:13 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <_CkJnKYmEZ4ZF0JtsSYuahAd9sgnX9OtcstjXaeqb8wn5uxfimc6S4jomly7If9VqnOXqXwaiCbJ9ttS6NiqE7n6cQUlwLvfO53paLmacvU=@protonmail.ch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <38dde301-d77e-35fd-88d4-5cdc5b570ee8@canonical.com>

Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Friday, October 12, 2018 3:19 AM, John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com> wrote:
>
> It isn't perfect but it manages consistency across distros as best as
> can be achieved atm.
>
> Its just a fact that some LSMs are not going to be built into some
> kernels. The only way to deal with that is direct people to build
> their own kernels.
>
> The other major problem is that the current LSM stacking patches do
> not deal with "extreme" stacking. So doing
>
> lsm=+apparmor
>
> (I am going to stick with the + syntax atm to avoid confusion between
> adding and setting)
>
> assuming apparmor is builtin will not necessarily get you apparmor if
> another major lsm is enabled. Yes your specific proposal would as it
> specifies it overrides the current major, except that ordering
> important so if say landlock registers before apparmor, you may still
> not get apparmor.
>

I think this will be solved with LSM_ORDER_LAST or something like that
Kees proposed.

> You proposal does not provide a means to ensure you have only a
> specific set of LSMs enabled. As an LSM not explicitly listed in lsm=
> lsm=! may still be enabled. So the user is going to have to be aware
> of the initial LSMs list if they are trying to guarentee a specific
> security arrangement.
>

What about special marker like "!!" which will mean "this string is
explicit?

lsm=!!,apparmor

will enable apparmor and disable everything else.

lsm=!!,!apparmor or lsm=!!

will set the string empty and disable everything.

"!!" in "CONFIG_LSM" will take precedence over "!!" in "lsm=" which
will make "lsm=" totally ignored. This way distro could lock specific
lsm set which isn't possible with current approach.

CONFIG_LSM=!!,yama,loadpin,integrity,apparmor

> This violates one of the hard asks, and I will tell you that this will
> just mean there is going to be some distro patching to make sure it
> exists.
>

I think I can quess who will make those patches :)

> The current explicit list is more consistent, and it is amenable to
> being extended with + or ! as selective add/remove so we are not
> locked into only supporting an explicit list.
>

Jordan

  reply	other threads:[~2018-10-12 11:31 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 57+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-10-11  0:18 [PATCH security-next v5 00/30] LSM: Explict ordering Kees Cook
2018-10-11  0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v5 01/30] LSM: Correctly announce start of LSM initialization Kees Cook
2018-10-11  0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v5 02/30] vmlinux.lds.h: Avoid copy/paste of security_init section Kees Cook
2018-10-11  0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v5 03/30] LSM: Rename .security_initcall section to .lsm_info Kees Cook
2018-10-11  0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v5 04/30] LSM: Remove initcall tracing Kees Cook
2018-10-11  0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v5 05/30] LSM: Convert from initcall to struct lsm_info Kees Cook
2018-10-11  0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v5 06/30] vmlinux.lds.h: Move LSM_TABLE into INIT_DATA Kees Cook
2018-10-11  0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v5 07/30] LSM: Convert security_initcall() into DEFINE_LSM() Kees Cook
2018-10-11  0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v5 08/30] LSM: Record LSM name in struct lsm_info Kees Cook
2018-10-11  0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v5 09/30] LSM: Provide init debugging infrastructure Kees Cook
2018-10-11  0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v5 10/30] LSM: Don't ignore initialization failures Kees Cook
2018-10-11  0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v5 11/30] LSM: Introduce LSM_FLAG_LEGACY_MAJOR Kees Cook
2018-10-11  0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v5 12/30] LSM: Provide separate ordered initialization Kees Cook
2018-11-02 18:13   ` Mimi Zohar
2018-11-02 20:49     ` Kees Cook
2018-11-05 14:13       ` Mimi Zohar
2018-10-11  0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v5 13/30] LoadPin: Rename boot param "enabled" to "enforce" Kees Cook
2018-10-11  0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v5 14/30] LSM: Plumb visibility into optional "enabled" state Kees Cook
2018-10-11  0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v5 15/30] LSM: Lift LSM selection out of individual LSMs Kees Cook
2018-10-11  0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v5 16/30] LSM: Build ordered list of LSMs to initialize Kees Cook
2018-10-11  0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v5 17/30] LSM: Introduce CONFIG_LSM Kees Cook
2018-10-11  0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v5 18/30] LSM: Introduce "lsm=" for boottime LSM selection Kees Cook
2018-10-11  0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v5 19/30] LSM: Tie enabling logic to presence in ordered list Kees Cook
2018-10-11  0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v5 20/30] LSM: Prepare for reorganizing "security=" logic Kees Cook
2018-10-11  0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v5 21/30] LSM: Refactor "security=" in terms of enable/disable Kees Cook
2018-10-11  0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v5 22/30] LSM: Separate idea of "major" LSM from "exclusive" LSM Kees Cook
2018-10-11  0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v5 23/30] apparmor: Remove SECURITY_APPARMOR_BOOTPARAM_VALUE Kees Cook
2018-10-11  0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v5 24/30] selinux: Remove SECURITY_SELINUX_BOOTPARAM_VALUE Kees Cook
2018-10-11  0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v5 25/30] LSM: Add all exclusive LSMs to ordered initialization Kees Cook
2018-10-11  0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v5 26/30] LSM: Split LSM preparation from initialization Kees Cook
2018-10-11  0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v5 27/30] LoadPin: Initialize as ordered LSM Kees Cook
2018-10-11  0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v5 28/30] Yama: " Kees Cook
2018-10-11  0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v5 29/30] LSM: Introduce enum lsm_order Kees Cook
2018-10-11  0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v5 30/30] capability: Initialize as LSM_ORDER_FIRST Kees Cook
2018-10-11  3:45 ` [PATCH security-next v5 00/30] LSM: Explict ordering James Morris
2018-10-11 15:14   ` Kees Cook
2018-10-11 15:52     ` James Morris
2018-10-11 17:57 ` Kees Cook
2018-10-11 22:58   ` Jordan Glover
2018-10-11 23:09     ` Kees Cook
2018-10-11 23:48       ` John Johansen
2018-10-12  0:11         ` Jordan Glover
2018-10-12  1:19           ` John Johansen
2018-10-12 11:31             ` Jordan Glover [this message]
2018-10-12 18:24               ` John Johansen
2018-10-12 19:01                 ` Kees Cook
2018-10-23 16:48                   ` Casey Schaufler
2018-10-23 18:50                     ` Kees Cook
2018-10-23 19:05                       ` Casey Schaufler
2018-10-24  8:56                         ` Casey Schaufler
2018-10-24 20:12                           ` Kees Cook
2018-11-14 21:04                             ` Casey Schaufler
2018-11-20 23:36                               ` Casey Schaufler
2018-10-11 23:53       ` Jordan Glover
2018-10-12  0:26         ` John Johansen
2018-10-12 11:31           ` Jordan Glover
2018-10-12 18:11             ` John Johansen

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='_CkJnKYmEZ4ZF0JtsSYuahAd9sgnX9OtcstjXaeqb8wn5uxfimc6S4jomly7If9VqnOXqXwaiCbJ9ttS6NiqE7n6cQUlwLvfO53paLmacvU=@protonmail.ch' \
    --to=golden_miller83@protonmail.ch \
    --cc=casey@schaufler-ca.com \
    --cc=jmorris@namei.org \
    --cc=john.johansen@canonical.com \
    --cc=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-doc@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=rdunlap@infradead.org \
    --cc=sds@tycho.nsa.gov \
    --cc=zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.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).