From: John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>,
Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>,
Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>,
"Schaufler, Casey" <casey.schaufler@intel.com>,
LSM <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
"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 v3 14/29] LSM: Plumb visibility into optional "enabled" state
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2018 15:53:33 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <c4270e42-388a-c1c8-add9-66116b7f5fb3@canonical.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGXu5jKm3yp8VFjTrRd1dibMVQeCmsHawNMyvtiCcEjxT7S57Q@mail.gmail.com>
On 10/01/2018 03:29 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 3:20 PM, John Johansen
> <john.johansen@canonical.com> wrote:
>> On 10/01/2018 02:56 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 2:47 PM, James Morris <jmorris@namei.org> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 24 Sep 2018, Kees Cook wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In preparation for lifting the "is this LSM enabled?" logic out of the
>>>>> individual LSMs, pass in any special enabled state tracking (as needed
>>>>> for SELinux, AppArmor, and LoadPin). This should be an "int" to include
>>>>> handling any future cases where "enabled" is exposed via sysctl which
>>>>> has no "bool" type.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> include/linux/lsm_hooks.h | 1 +
>>>>> security/apparmor/lsm.c | 5 +++--
>>>>> security/selinux/hooks.c | 1 +
>>>>> 3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h b/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
>>>>> index 5056f7374b3d..2a41e8e6f6e5 100644
>>>>> --- a/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
>>>>> +++ b/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
>>>>> @@ -2044,6 +2044,7 @@ extern void security_add_hooks(struct security_hook_list *hooks, int count,
>>>>> struct lsm_info {
>>>>> const char *name; /* Populated automatically. */
>>>>> unsigned long flags; /* Optional: flags describing LSM */
>>>>> + int *enabled; /* Optional: NULL means enabled. */
>>>>
>>>> This seems potentially confusing.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps initialize 'enabled' to a default int pointer, like:
>>>>
>>>> static int lsm_default_enabled = 1;
>>>>
>>>> Then,
>>>>
>>>> DEFINE_LSM(foobar)
>>>> flags = LSM_FLAG_LEGACY_MAJOR,
>>>> .enabled = &lsm_default_enabled,
>>>> .init = foobar_init,
>>>> END_LSM;
>>>
>>> The reason I didn't do this is because there are only two LSMs that
>>> expose this "enabled" variable, so I didn't like making the other LSMs
>>> have to declare this. Internally, though, this is exactly what the
>>> infrastructure does: if it finds a NULL, it aims it at
>>> &lsm_default_enabled (in a later patch).
>>>
>>> However, it seems more discussion is needed on the "enable" bit of
>>> this, so I'll reply to John in a moment...
>>>
>> fwiw the apparmor.enabled config is really only a meant to be used to
>> disable apparmor. I'd drop it entirely except its part of the userspace
>> api now and needs to show up in
>>
>> /sys/module/apparmor/parameters/enabled
>
> Showing the enabled-ness there can be wired up. What should happen if
> someone sets apparmor.enabled=0/1 in new-series-world? (See other
> thread...)
>
I am open to either just making apparmor=0/apparmor.enabled=0 a means
of only disabling apparmor, thats how it is currently used. Or even
potentially getting rid of it as an available kernel boot config
parameter and running with just lsm.enabled/disabled.
The important bit that applications are relying on is having
/sys/module/apparmor/parameters/enabled
set to the the correct value.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-10-01 22:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 82+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-09-25 0:18 [PATCH security-next v3 00/29] LSM: Explict LSM ordering Kees Cook
2018-09-25 0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v3 01/29] LSM: Correctly announce start of LSM initialization Kees Cook
2018-10-01 19:53 ` James Morris
2018-10-01 21:05 ` John Johansen
2018-09-25 0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v3 02/29] vmlinux.lds.h: Avoid copy/paste of security_init section Kees Cook
2018-10-01 19:56 ` James Morris
2018-10-01 21:05 ` John Johansen
2018-09-25 0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v3 03/29] LSM: Rename .security_initcall section to .lsm_info Kees Cook
2018-10-01 19:57 ` James Morris
2018-10-01 21:06 ` John Johansen
2018-09-25 0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v3 04/29] LSM: Remove initcall tracing Kees Cook
2018-09-26 16:35 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-09-26 18:35 ` Kees Cook
2018-09-30 23:25 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-10-01 1:01 ` Kees Cook
2018-10-01 21:07 ` John Johansen
2018-10-01 21:23 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-10-01 22:38 ` Kees Cook
2018-09-25 0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v3 05/29] LSM: Convert from initcall to struct lsm_info Kees Cook
2018-10-01 19:59 ` James Morris
2018-10-01 21:08 ` John Johansen
2018-09-25 0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v3 06/29] vmlinux.lds.h: Move LSM_TABLE into INIT_DATA Kees Cook
2018-10-01 21:10 ` John Johansen
2018-09-25 0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v3 07/29] LSM: Convert security_initcall() into DEFINE_LSM() Kees Cook
2018-10-01 21:12 ` John Johansen
2018-09-25 0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v3 08/29] LSM: Record LSM name in struct lsm_info Kees Cook
2018-10-01 21:13 ` John Johansen
2018-09-25 0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v3 09/29] LSM: Provide init debugging infrastructure Kees Cook
2018-10-01 21:14 ` John Johansen
2018-09-25 0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v3 10/29] LSM: Don't ignore initialization failures Kees Cook
2018-10-01 21:14 ` John Johansen
2018-09-25 0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v3 11/29] LSM: Introduce LSM_FLAG_LEGACY_MAJOR Kees Cook
2018-10-01 21:15 ` John Johansen
2018-09-25 0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v3 12/29] LSM: Provide separate ordered initialization Kees Cook
2018-10-01 21:17 ` John Johansen
2018-10-01 22:03 ` Kees Cook
2018-09-25 0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v3 13/29] LoadPin: Rename "enable" to "enforce" Kees Cook
2018-10-01 21:17 ` John Johansen
2018-09-25 0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v3 14/29] LSM: Plumb visibility into optional "enabled" state Kees Cook
2018-10-01 21:18 ` John Johansen
2018-10-01 21:47 ` James Morris
2018-10-01 21:56 ` Kees Cook
2018-10-01 22:20 ` John Johansen
2018-10-01 22:29 ` Kees Cook
2018-10-01 22:53 ` John Johansen [this message]
2018-09-25 0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v3 15/29] LSM: Lift LSM selection out of individual LSMs Kees Cook
2018-10-01 21:18 ` John Johansen
2018-09-25 0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v3 16/29] LSM: Prepare for arbitrary LSM enabling Kees Cook
2018-10-01 21:22 ` John Johansen
2018-09-25 0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v3 17/29] LSM: Introduce CONFIG_LSM_ENABLE Kees Cook
2018-10-01 21:34 ` John Johansen
2018-09-25 0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v3 18/29] LSM: Introduce lsm.enable= and lsm.disable= Kees Cook
2018-10-01 21:46 ` John Johansen
2018-10-01 22:27 ` Kees Cook
2018-10-01 22:48 ` John Johansen
2018-10-01 23:30 ` Kees Cook
2018-10-01 23:38 ` Kees Cook
2018-10-01 23:57 ` John Johansen
2018-10-01 23:44 ` John Johansen
2018-10-01 23:49 ` Kees Cook
2018-09-25 0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v3 19/29] LSM: Prepare for reorganizing "security=" logic Kees Cook
2018-10-01 21:47 ` John Johansen
2018-09-25 0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v3 20/29] LSM: Refactor "security=" in terms of enable/disable Kees Cook
2018-09-25 0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v3 21/29] LSM: Build ordered list of ordered LSMs for init Kees Cook
2018-09-25 0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v3 22/29] LSM: Introduce CONFIG_LSM_ORDER Kees Cook
2018-09-25 0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v3 23/29] LSM: Introduce "lsm.order=" for boottime ordering Kees Cook
2018-09-25 0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v3 24/29] LoadPin: Initialize as ordered LSM Kees Cook
2018-09-25 0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v3 25/29] Yama: " Kees Cook
2018-09-25 0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v3 26/29] LSM: Introduce enum lsm_order Kees Cook
2018-09-25 0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v3 27/29] capability: Initialize as LSM_ORDER_FIRST Kees Cook
2018-09-25 0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v3 28/29] LSM: Separate idea of "major" LSM from "exclusive" LSM Kees Cook
2018-09-25 0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v3 29/29] LSM: Add all exclusive LSMs to ordered initialization Kees Cook
2018-09-28 15:55 ` [PATCH security-next v3 00/29] LSM: Explict LSM ordering Casey Schaufler
2018-09-28 20:01 ` Kees Cook
2018-09-28 20:25 ` Stephen Smalley
2018-09-28 20:33 ` Stephen Smalley
2018-09-28 20:54 ` Kees Cook
2018-09-29 10:48 ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-09-29 18:18 ` Kees Cook
2018-09-30 2:36 ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-09-30 16:57 ` Kees Cook
2018-09-29 18:19 ` 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=c4270e42-388a-c1c8-add9-66116b7f5fb3@canonical.com \
--to=john.johansen@canonical.com \
--cc=casey.schaufler@intel.com \
--cc=casey@schaufler-ca.com \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--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=sds@tycho.nsa.gov \
/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).