Netdev Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
To: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@google.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
	Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>,
	James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
	linux-security@vger.kernel.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
	David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>,
	Network Development <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	Chun-Yi Lee <jlee@suse.com>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
	LSM List <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V33 24/30] bpf: Restrict bpf when kernel lockdown is in confidentiality mode
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2019 16:47:52 -0700
Message-ID: <CALCETrUzGfB2EO0eUpan3b4qyUPmkTZ-7dMuLqu_bmnY-ry=SA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACdnJuuy7-tkj86njAqtdJ3dUMu-2T8a2y8DC3fMKBK0z9J6ag@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 11:47 AM Matthew Garrett <mjg59@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 4:27 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> wrote:
> > They're really quite similar in my mind.  Certainly some things in the
> > "integrity" category give absolutely trivial control over the kernel
> > (e.g. modules) while others make it quite challenging (ioperm), but
> > the end result is very similar.  And quite a few "confidentiality"
> > things genuinely do allow all kernel memory to be read.
> >
> > I agree that finer-grained distinctions could be useful. My concern is
> > that it's a tradeoff, and the other end of the tradeoff is an ABI
> > stability issue.  If someone decides down the road that some feature
> > that is currently "integrity" can be split into a narrow "integrity"
> > feature and a "confidentiality" feature then, if the user policy knows
> > about the individual features, there's a risk of breaking people's
> > systems.  If we keep the fine-grained control, do we have a clear
> > compatibility story?
>
> My preference right now is to retain the fine-grained aspect of things
> in the internal API, simply because it'll be more annoying to add it
> back later if we want to. I don't want to expose it via the Lockdown
> user facing API for the reasons you've described, but it's not
> impossible that another LSM would find a way to do this reasonably.
> Does it seem reasonable to punt this discussion out to the point where
> another LSM tries to do something with this information, based on the
> implementation they're attempting?

I think I can get behind this, as long as it's clear to LSM authors
that this list is only a little bit stable.  I can certainly see the
use for the fine-grained info being available for auditing.

      reply index

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <20190621011941.186255-1-matthewgarrett@google.com>
2019-06-21  1:19 ` Matthew Garrett
2019-06-21  5:22   ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-06-21 20:05     ` Matthew Garrett
2019-06-26 20:22     ` James Morris
2019-06-27  0:57       ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-06-27 14:35         ` Stephen Smalley
2019-06-27 18:06           ` James Morris
2019-06-27 20:16             ` Stephen Smalley
2019-06-27 23:16               ` Matthew Garrett
2019-06-27 23:23                 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-06-27 23:27           ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-06-28 18:47             ` Matthew Garrett
2019-06-29 23:47               ` Andy Lutomirski [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publically 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='CALCETrUzGfB2EO0eUpan3b4qyUPmkTZ-7dMuLqu_bmnY-ry=SA@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=luto@kernel.org \
    --cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
    --cc=jlee@suse.com \
    --cc=jmorris@namei.org \
    --cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-security@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mjg59@google.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --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

Netdev Archive on lore.kernel.org

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/0 netdev/git/0.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/1 netdev/git/1.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 netdev netdev/ https://lore.kernel.org/netdev \
		netdev@vger.kernel.org netdev@archiver.kernel.org
	public-inbox-index netdev


Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.netdev


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/ public-inbox