From: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
To: "Mickaël Salaün" <mic@digikod.net>,
"Casey Schaufler" <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
casey.schaufler@intel.com, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
jmorris@namei.org, keescook@chromium.org,
john.johansen@canonical.com, penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp,
stephen.smalley.work@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-api@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/9] LSM: Identify modules by more than name
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2022 22:48:53 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhR9h1GF6VGovp1+UB-vt+QNofjmecPwLqE3OviKQHRMcg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <463cb747-5bac-9e8e-b78e-1ff6a1b29142@digikod.net>
On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 11:19 AM Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> wrote:
> On 24/11/2022 06:40, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 12:15:44PM -0800, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> >> Create a struct lsm_id to contain identifying information
> >> about Linux Security Modules (LSMs). At inception this contains
> >> the name of the module and an identifier associated with the
> >> security module. Change the security_add_hooks() interface to
> >> use this structure. Change the individual modules to maintain
> >> their own struct lsm_id and pass it to security_add_hooks().
> >>
> >> The values are for LSM identifiers are defined in a new UAPI
> >> header file linux/lsm.h. Each existing LSM has been updated to
> >> include it's LSMID in the lsm_id.
> >>
> >> The LSM ID values are sequential, with the oldest module
> >> LSM_ID_CAPABILITY being the lowest value and the existing modules
> >> numbered in the order they were included in the main line kernel.
> >> This is an arbitrary convention for assigning the values, but
> >> none better presents itself. The value 0 is defined as being invalid.
> >> The values 1-99 are reserved for any special case uses which may
> >> arise in the future.
> >
> > What would be a "special case" that deserves a lower number?
>
> I don't see any meaningful use case for these reserved numbers either.
> If there are some, let's put them now, otherwise we should start with 1.
> Is it inspired by an existing UAPI?
> Reserving 0 as invalid is good though.
I haven't finished reviewing this latest patchset, but I wanted to
comment on this quickly while I had a moment in front of a keyboard
... I did explain my desire and reasoning for this in a previous
revision of this patchset and I still believe the
reserved-for-potential-future-use to be a valid reason so I'm going to
ask for this to remain. Several of you may disagree, but unless you
can provide a reason why these reserved values would *seriously* break
these, or potential future syscalls, I'm going to be stubborn and
insist we retain a set of low-numbered reserved values.
--
paul-moore.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-11-28 3:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20221123201552.7865-1-casey.ref@schaufler-ca.com>
2022-11-23 20:15 ` [PATCH v3 0/9] LSM: Three basic syscalls Casey Schaufler
2022-11-23 20:15 ` [PATCH v3 1/9] LSM: Identify modules by more than name Casey Schaufler
2022-11-24 5:40 ` Greg KH
2022-11-25 16:19 ` Mickaël Salaün
2022-11-28 3:48 ` Paul Moore [this message]
2022-11-28 7:51 ` Greg KH
2022-11-28 12:49 ` Paul Moore
2022-11-28 19:07 ` Casey Schaufler
2022-11-25 16:30 ` Mickaël Salaün
2022-11-28 3:52 ` Paul Moore
2022-11-23 20:15 ` [PATCH v3 2/9] LSM: Identify the process attributes for each module Casey Schaufler
2022-11-25 16:41 ` Mickaël Salaün
2022-11-25 18:27 ` Casey Schaufler
2022-11-23 20:15 ` [PATCH v3 3/9] LSM: Maintain a table of LSM attribute data Casey Schaufler
2022-11-23 20:15 ` [PATCH v3 4/9] proc: Use lsmids instead of lsm names for attrs Casey Schaufler
2022-11-23 20:15 ` [PATCH v3 5/9] LSM: lsm_get_self_attr syscall for LSM self attributes Casey Schaufler
2022-11-25 13:54 ` kernel test robot
2022-12-04 2:16 ` kernel test robot
2022-11-23 20:15 ` [PATCH v3 6/9] LSM: Create lsm_module_list system call Casey Schaufler
2022-11-23 20:15 ` [PATCH v3 7/9] LSM: lsm_set_self_attr syscall for LSM self attributes Casey Schaufler
2022-11-23 20:15 ` [PATCH v3 8/9] LSM: wireup Linux Security Module syscalls Casey Schaufler
2022-11-27 9:50 ` kernel test robot
2022-11-23 20:15 ` [PATCH v3 9/9] LSM: selftests for Linux Security Module infrastructure syscalls 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=CAHC9VhR9h1GF6VGovp1+UB-vt+QNofjmecPwLqE3OviKQHRMcg@mail.gmail.com \
--to=paul@paul-moore.com \
--cc=casey.schaufler@intel.com \
--cc=casey@schaufler-ca.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=john.johansen@canonical.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mic@digikod.net \
--cc=penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp \
--cc=stephen.smalley.work@gmail.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).