From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
Cc: "Mickaël Salaün" <mic@digikod.net>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Alexei Starovoitov" <ast@kernel.org>,
"Andy Lutomirski" <luto@amacapital.net>,
"Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo" <acme@kernel.org>,
"Daniel Borkmann" <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
"David Drysdale" <drysdale@google.com>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
"Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
"James Morris" <james.l.morris@oracle.com>,
"Jann Horn" <jann@thejh.net>, "Jonathan Corbet" <corbet@lwn.net>,
"Matthew Garrett" <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>,
"Michael Kerrisk" <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>,
"Paul Moore" <paul@paul-moore.com>,
"Sargun Dhillon" <sargun@sargun.me>,
"Serge E . Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
"Shuah Khan" <shuah@kernel.org>, "Tejun Heo" <tj@kernel.org>,
"Thomas Graf" <tgraf@suug.ch>, "Will Drewry" <wad@chromium.org>,
"kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com"
<kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com>,
"Linux API" <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-security-module <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
"Network Development" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v6 04/11] landlock: Add LSM hooks related to filesystem
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 16:40:34 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jKCr1qPqJ8YWAjK1Lj-fThAhMnrxFW8twFcj6C9ODBpsA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c122415d-c2be-d013-efb4-833ba87d144d@schaufler-ca.com>
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote:
> On 4/18/2017 3:44 PM, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
>> On 19/04/2017 00:17, Kees Cook wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 4:46 PM, Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> wrote:
>>>> +void __init landlock_add_hooks(void)
>>>> +{
>>>> + pr_info("landlock: Version %u", LANDLOCK_VERSION);
>>>> + landlock_add_hooks_fs();
>>>> + security_add_hooks(NULL, 0, "landlock");
>>>> + bpf_register_prog_type(&bpf_landlock_type);
>>> I'm confused by the separation of hook registration here. The call to
>>> security_add_hooks is with count=0 is especially weird. Why isn't this
>>> just a single call with security_add_hooks(landlock_hooks,
>>> ARRAY_SIZE(landlock_hooks), "landlock")?
>> Yes, this is ugly with the new security_add_hooks() with three arguments
>> but I wanted to split the hooks definition in multiple files.
>
> Why? I'll buy a good argument, but there are dangers in
> allowing multiple calls to security_add_hooks().
>
>>
>> The current security_add_hooks() use lsm_append(lsm, &lsm_names) which
>> is not exported. Unfortunately, calling multiple security_add_hooks()
>> with the same LSM name would register multiple names for the same LSM…
>> Is it OK if I modify this function to not add duplicated entries?
>
> It may seem absurd, but it's conceivable that a module might
> have two hooks it wants called. My example is a module that
> counts the number of times SELinux denies a process access to
> things (which needs to be called before and after SELinux in
> order to detect denials) and takes "appropriate action" if
> too many denials occur. It would be weird, wonky and hackish,
> but that never stopped anybody before.
If ends up being sane and clear, I'm fine with allowing multiple calls.
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-04-18 23:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 50+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-03-28 23:46 [PATCH net-next v6 00/11] Landlock LSM: Toward unprivileged sandboxing Mickaël Salaün
2017-03-28 23:46 ` [PATCH net-next v6 01/11] bpf: Add eBPF program subtype and is_valid_subtype() verifier Mickaël Salaün
2017-03-29 13:48 ` kbuild test robot
2017-04-18 21:48 ` Kees Cook
2017-03-28 23:46 ` [PATCH net-next v6 02/11] bpf,landlock: Define an eBPF program type for Landlock Mickaël Salaün
2017-04-16 21:57 ` Mickaël Salaün
2017-04-18 21:58 ` Kees Cook
2017-03-28 23:46 ` [PATCH net-next v6 03/11] bpf: Define handle_fs and add a new helper bpf_handle_fs_get_mode() Mickaël Salaün
2017-03-28 23:46 ` [PATCH net-next v6 04/11] landlock: Add LSM hooks related to filesystem Mickaël Salaün
2017-03-29 15:18 ` kbuild test robot
2017-04-18 22:17 ` Kees Cook
2017-04-18 22:44 ` Mickaël Salaün
2017-04-18 23:16 ` Casey Schaufler
2017-04-18 23:40 ` Kees Cook [this message]
2017-04-19 22:03 ` Mickaël Salaün
2017-04-19 23:58 ` [kernel-hardening] " Casey Schaufler
2017-04-20 1:48 ` Kees Cook
2017-04-18 23:39 ` Kees Cook
2017-03-28 23:46 ` [PATCH net-next v6 05/11] seccomp: Split put_seccomp_filter() with put_seccomp() Mickaël Salaün
2017-04-18 22:23 ` Kees Cook
2017-04-18 22:47 ` Mickaël Salaün
2017-04-19 22:18 ` Mickaël Salaün
2017-04-20 1:54 ` Kees Cook
2017-03-28 23:46 ` [PATCH net-next v6 06/11] seccomp,landlock: Handle Landlock events per process hierarchy Mickaël Salaün
2017-03-29 10:35 ` [kernel-hardening] " Djalal Harouni
2017-03-31 21:15 ` Mickaël Salaün
2017-04-18 22:54 ` Kees Cook
2017-04-18 22:53 ` Kees Cook
2017-04-18 23:24 ` Mickaël Salaün
2017-04-18 23:48 ` Kees Cook
2017-03-28 23:46 ` [PATCH net-next v6 07/11] landlock: Add ptrace restrictions Mickaël Salaün
2017-04-10 6:48 ` [kernel-hardening] " Djalal Harouni
2017-04-11 7:19 ` Mickaël Salaün
2017-03-28 23:46 ` [PATCH net-next v6 08/11] bpf: Add a Landlock sandbox example Mickaël Salaün
2017-04-18 23:06 ` Kees Cook
2017-04-18 23:35 ` Mickaël Salaün
2017-03-28 23:46 ` [PATCH net-next v6 09/11] seccomp: Enhance test_harness with an assert step mechanism Mickaël Salaün
2017-04-19 0:02 ` Kees Cook
2017-04-19 21:51 ` Mickaël Salaün
2017-04-19 22:02 ` Kees Cook
2017-04-19 22:05 ` Mickaël Salaün
2017-04-20 1:50 ` Kees Cook
2017-03-28 23:46 ` [PATCH net-next v6 10/11] bpf,landlock: Add tests for Landlock Mickaël Salaün
2017-04-18 23:16 ` Kees Cook
2017-04-18 23:53 ` Mickaël Salaün
2017-04-18 23:59 ` Kees Cook
2017-03-28 23:46 ` [PATCH net-next v6 11/11] landlock: Add user and kernel documentation " Mickaël Salaün
2017-03-29 15:58 ` kbuild test robot
2017-04-18 23:26 ` [PATCH net-next v6 00/11] Landlock LSM: Toward unprivileged sandboxing Kees Cook
2017-04-19 0:12 ` Mickaël Salaün
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=CAGXu5jKCr1qPqJ8YWAjK1Lj-fThAhMnrxFW8twFcj6C9ODBpsA@mail.gmail.com \
--to=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=casey@schaufler-ca.com \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=drysdale@google.com \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=james.l.morris@oracle.com \
--cc=jann@thejh.net \
--cc=kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@amacapital.net \
--cc=mic@digikod.net \
--cc=mjg59@srcf.ucam.org \
--cc=mtk.manpages@gmail.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paul@paul-moore.com \
--cc=sargun@sargun.me \
--cc=serge@hallyn.com \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=tgraf@suug.ch \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=wad@chromium.org \
/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).