From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> To: James Morris <jmorris@namei.org> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>, John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.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>, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: [PATCH security-next v2 23/26] LSM: Introduce enum lsm_order Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 09:23:35 -0700 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20180920162338.21060-24-keescook@chromium.org> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20180920162338.21060-1-keescook@chromium.org> In preparation for distinguishing the "capability" LSM from other LSMs, it must be ordered first. This introduces LSM_ORDER_MUTABLE for the general LSMs, LSM_ORDER_FIRST for capabilities, and LSM_ORDER_LAST for anything that must run last (e.g. Landlock may use this in the future). Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> --- include/linux/lsm_hooks.h | 7 +++++++ security/security.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++-- 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h b/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h index d75a42eb3ddd..bf29851baf47 100644 --- a/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h +++ b/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h @@ -2041,8 +2041,15 @@ extern void security_add_hooks(struct security_hook_list *hooks, int count, #define LSM_FLAG_LEGACY_MAJOR (1 << 0) +enum lsm_order { + LSM_ORDER_FIRST = -1, /* This is only for capabilities. */ + LSM_ORDER_MUTABLE = 0, + LSM_ORDER_LAST, +}; + struct lsm_info { const char *name; /* Populated automatically. */ + enum lsm_order order; /* Optional: default is LSM_ORDER_MUTABLE */ unsigned long flags; /* Optional: flags describing LSM */ int *enabled; /* Optional: NULL means enabled. */ int (*init)(void); diff --git a/security/security.c b/security/security.c index 3fba28de789b..d649e7dea4c4 100644 --- a/security/security.c +++ b/security/security.c @@ -62,6 +62,10 @@ static int lsm_enabled_true __initdata = 1; static int lsm_enabled_false __initdata = 0; static void __init set_enabled(struct lsm_info *lsm, bool enabled) { + /* First LSM cannot have enablement changed. */ + if (lsm->order == LSM_ORDER_FIRST) + return; + if (!lsm->enabled) { /* * If the LSM hasn't configured an enable flag, we @@ -124,7 +128,8 @@ static void __init parse_lsm_order(const char *order, const char *origin) bool found = false; for (lsm = __start_lsm_info; lsm < __end_lsm_info; lsm++) { - if ((lsm->flags & LSM_FLAG_LEGACY_MAJOR) == 0 && + if (lsm->order == LSM_ORDER_MUTABLE && + (lsm->flags & LSM_FLAG_LEGACY_MAJOR) == 0 && strcmp(lsm->name, name) == 0) { append_ordered_lsm(lsm, origin); found = true; @@ -142,6 +147,12 @@ static void __init prepare_lsm_order(void) { struct lsm_info *lsm; + /* LSM_ORDER_FIRST is always first. */ + for (lsm = __start_lsm_info; lsm < __end_lsm_info; lsm++) { + if (lsm->order == LSM_ORDER_FIRST) + append_ordered_lsm(lsm, "first"); + } + /* Parse order from commandline, if present. */ if (chosen_lsm_order) parse_lsm_order(chosen_lsm_order, "cmdline"); @@ -151,9 +162,16 @@ static void __init prepare_lsm_order(void) /* Add any missing LSMs, in link order. */ for (lsm = __start_lsm_info; lsm < __end_lsm_info; lsm++) { - if ((lsm->flags & LSM_FLAG_LEGACY_MAJOR) == 0) + if (lsm->order == LSM_ORDER_MUTABLE && + (lsm->flags & LSM_FLAG_LEGACY_MAJOR) == 0) append_ordered_lsm(lsm, "link-time"); } + + /* LSM_ORDER_LAST is always last. */ + for (lsm = __start_lsm_info; lsm < __end_lsm_info; lsm++) { + if (lsm->order == LSM_ORDER_LAST) + append_ordered_lsm(lsm, "last"); + } } /* Is an LSM allowed to be enabled? */ -- 2.17.1
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: keescook@chromium.org (Kees Cook) To: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org Subject: [PATCH security-next v2 23/26] LSM: Introduce enum lsm_order Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 09:23:35 -0700 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20180920162338.21060-24-keescook@chromium.org> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20180920162338.21060-1-keescook@chromium.org> In preparation for distinguishing the "capability" LSM from other LSMs, it must be ordered first. This introduces LSM_ORDER_MUTABLE for the general LSMs, LSM_ORDER_FIRST for capabilities, and LSM_ORDER_LAST for anything that must run last (e.g. Landlock may use this in the future). Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> --- include/linux/lsm_hooks.h | 7 +++++++ security/security.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++-- 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h b/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h index d75a42eb3ddd..bf29851baf47 100644 --- a/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h +++ b/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h @@ -2041,8 +2041,15 @@ extern void security_add_hooks(struct security_hook_list *hooks, int count, #define LSM_FLAG_LEGACY_MAJOR (1 << 0) +enum lsm_order { + LSM_ORDER_FIRST = -1, /* This is only for capabilities. */ + LSM_ORDER_MUTABLE = 0, + LSM_ORDER_LAST, +}; + struct lsm_info { const char *name; /* Populated automatically. */ + enum lsm_order order; /* Optional: default is LSM_ORDER_MUTABLE */ unsigned long flags; /* Optional: flags describing LSM */ int *enabled; /* Optional: NULL means enabled. */ int (*init)(void); diff --git a/security/security.c b/security/security.c index 3fba28de789b..d649e7dea4c4 100644 --- a/security/security.c +++ b/security/security.c @@ -62,6 +62,10 @@ static int lsm_enabled_true __initdata = 1; static int lsm_enabled_false __initdata = 0; static void __init set_enabled(struct lsm_info *lsm, bool enabled) { + /* First LSM cannot have enablement changed. */ + if (lsm->order == LSM_ORDER_FIRST) + return; + if (!lsm->enabled) { /* * If the LSM hasn't configured an enable flag, we @@ -124,7 +128,8 @@ static void __init parse_lsm_order(const char *order, const char *origin) bool found = false; for (lsm = __start_lsm_info; lsm < __end_lsm_info; lsm++) { - if ((lsm->flags & LSM_FLAG_LEGACY_MAJOR) == 0 && + if (lsm->order == LSM_ORDER_MUTABLE && + (lsm->flags & LSM_FLAG_LEGACY_MAJOR) == 0 && strcmp(lsm->name, name) == 0) { append_ordered_lsm(lsm, origin); found = true; @@ -142,6 +147,12 @@ static void __init prepare_lsm_order(void) { struct lsm_info *lsm; + /* LSM_ORDER_FIRST is always first. */ + for (lsm = __start_lsm_info; lsm < __end_lsm_info; lsm++) { + if (lsm->order == LSM_ORDER_FIRST) + append_ordered_lsm(lsm, "first"); + } + /* Parse order from commandline, if present. */ if (chosen_lsm_order) parse_lsm_order(chosen_lsm_order, "cmdline"); @@ -151,9 +162,16 @@ static void __init prepare_lsm_order(void) /* Add any missing LSMs, in link order. */ for (lsm = __start_lsm_info; lsm < __end_lsm_info; lsm++) { - if ((lsm->flags & LSM_FLAG_LEGACY_MAJOR) == 0) + if (lsm->order == LSM_ORDER_MUTABLE && + (lsm->flags & LSM_FLAG_LEGACY_MAJOR) == 0) append_ordered_lsm(lsm, "link-time"); } + + /* LSM_ORDER_LAST is always last. */ + for (lsm = __start_lsm_info; lsm < __end_lsm_info; lsm++) { + if (lsm->order == LSM_ORDER_LAST) + append_ordered_lsm(lsm, "last"); + } } /* Is an LSM allowed to be enabled? */ -- 2.17.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-09-20 16:30 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 90+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2018-09-20 16:23 [PATCH security-next v2 00/26] LSM: Explict LSM ordering Kees Cook 2018-09-20 16:23 ` Kees Cook 2018-09-20 16:23 ` [PATCH security-next v2 01/26] LSM: Correctly announce start of LSM initialization Kees Cook 2018-09-20 16:23 ` Kees Cook 2018-09-20 23:39 ` Casey Schaufler 2018-09-20 23:39 ` Casey Schaufler 2018-09-20 16:23 ` [PATCH security-next v2 02/26] vmlinux.lds.h: Avoid copy/paste of security_init section Kees Cook 2018-09-20 16:23 ` Kees Cook 2018-09-20 16:23 ` [PATCH security-next v2 03/26] LSM: Rename .security_initcall section to .lsm_info Kees Cook 2018-09-20 16:23 ` Kees Cook 2018-09-20 16:23 ` [PATCH security-next v2 04/26] LSM: Remove initcall tracing Kees Cook 2018-09-20 16:23 ` Kees Cook 2018-09-20 16:23 ` [PATCH security-next v2 05/26] LSM: Convert from initcall to struct lsm_info Kees Cook 2018-09-20 16:23 ` Kees Cook 2018-09-20 16:23 ` [PATCH security-next v2 06/26] vmlinux.lds.h: Move LSM_TABLE into INIT_DATA Kees Cook 2018-09-20 16:23 ` Kees Cook 2018-09-20 16:23 ` [PATCH security-next v2 07/26] LSM: Convert security_initcall() into DEFINE_LSM() Kees Cook 2018-09-20 16:23 ` Kees Cook 2018-09-20 16:23 ` [PATCH security-next v2 08/26] LSM: Record LSM name in struct lsm_info Kees Cook 2018-09-20 16:23 ` Kees Cook 2018-09-20 16:23 ` [PATCH security-next v2 09/26] LSM: Provide init debugging infrastructure Kees Cook 2018-09-20 16:23 ` Kees Cook 2018-09-20 16:23 ` [PATCH security-next v2 10/26] LSM: Don't ignore initialization failures Kees Cook 2018-09-20 16:23 ` Kees Cook 2018-09-20 16:23 ` [PATCH security-next v2 11/26] LSM: Introduce LSM_FLAG_LEGACY_MAJOR Kees Cook 2018-09-20 16:23 ` Kees Cook 2018-09-20 16:23 ` [PATCH security-next v2 12/26] LSM: Provide separate ordered initialization Kees Cook 2018-09-20 16:23 ` Kees Cook 2018-09-20 16:23 ` [PATCH security-next v2 13/26] LSM: Plumb visibility into optional "enabled" state Kees Cook 2018-09-20 16:23 ` Kees Cook 2018-09-20 16:23 ` [PATCH security-next v2 14/26] LSM: Lift LSM selection out of individual LSMs Kees Cook 2018-09-20 16:23 ` Kees Cook 2018-09-20 16:23 ` [PATCH security-next v2 15/26] LSM: Introduce lsm.enable= and lsm.disable= Kees Cook 2018-09-20 16:23 ` Kees Cook 2018-09-20 16:23 ` [PATCH security-next v2 16/26] LSM: Prepare for reorganizing "security=" logic Kees Cook 2018-09-20 16:23 ` Kees Cook 2018-09-20 16:23 ` [PATCH security-next v2 17/26] LSM: Refactor "security=" in terms of enable/disable Kees Cook 2018-09-20 16:23 ` Kees Cook 2018-09-20 16:23 ` [PATCH security-next v2 18/26] LSM: Build ordered list of ordered LSMs for init Kees Cook 2018-09-20 16:23 ` Kees Cook 2018-09-21 0:04 ` Casey Schaufler 2018-09-21 0:04 ` Casey Schaufler 2018-09-21 0:37 ` Kees Cook 2018-09-21 0:37 ` Kees Cook 2018-09-20 16:23 ` [PATCH security-next v2 19/26] LSM: Introduce CONFIG_LSM_ORDER Kees Cook 2018-09-20 16:23 ` Kees Cook 2018-09-21 0:10 ` Casey Schaufler 2018-09-21 0:10 ` Casey Schaufler 2018-09-21 0:14 ` Casey Schaufler 2018-09-21 0:14 ` Casey Schaufler 2018-09-20 16:23 ` [PATCH security-next v2 20/26] LSM: Introduce "lsm.order=" for boottime ordering Kees Cook 2018-09-20 16:23 ` Kees Cook 2018-09-21 0:12 ` Casey Schaufler 2018-09-21 0:12 ` Casey Schaufler 2018-09-21 0:40 ` Kees Cook 2018-09-21 0:40 ` Kees Cook 2018-09-20 16:23 ` [PATCH security-next v2 21/26] LoadPin: Initialize as ordered LSM Kees Cook 2018-09-20 16:23 ` Kees Cook 2018-09-20 16:23 ` [PATCH security-next v2 22/26] Yama: " Kees Cook 2018-09-20 16:23 ` Kees Cook 2018-09-20 16:23 ` Kees Cook [this message] 2018-09-20 16:23 ` [PATCH security-next v2 23/26] LSM: Introduce enum lsm_order Kees Cook 2018-09-20 16:23 ` [PATCH security-next v2 24/26] capability: Mark as LSM_ORDER_FIRST Kees Cook 2018-09-20 16:23 ` Kees Cook 2018-09-20 16:23 ` [PATCH security-next v2 25/26] LSM: Separate idea of "major" LSM from "exclusive" LSM Kees Cook 2018-09-20 16:23 ` Kees Cook 2018-09-20 16:23 ` [PATCH security-next v2 26/26] LSM: Add all exclusive LSMs to ordered initialization Kees Cook 2018-09-20 16:23 ` Kees Cook 2018-09-21 0:25 ` Casey Schaufler 2018-09-21 0:25 ` Casey Schaufler 2018-09-21 0:45 ` Kees Cook 2018-09-21 0:45 ` Kees Cook 2018-09-21 1:10 ` Casey Schaufler 2018-09-21 1:10 ` Casey Schaufler 2018-09-21 1:39 ` John Johansen 2018-09-21 1:39 ` John Johansen 2018-09-21 2:05 ` Kees Cook 2018-09-21 2:05 ` Kees Cook 2018-09-21 2:14 ` John Johansen 2018-09-21 2:14 ` John Johansen 2018-09-21 3:02 ` Kees Cook 2018-09-21 3:02 ` Kees Cook 2018-09-21 13:19 ` John Johansen 2018-09-21 13:19 ` John Johansen 2018-09-21 14:57 ` Casey Schaufler 2018-09-21 14:57 ` Casey Schaufler 2018-09-20 20:14 ` [PATCH security-next v2 00/26] LSM: Explict LSM ordering Martin Steigerwald 2018-09-20 20:14 ` Martin Steigerwald 2018-09-20 21:55 ` Kees Cook 2018-09-20 21:55 ` Kees Cook
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=20180920162338.21060-24-keescook@chromium.org \ --to=keescook@chromium.org \ --cc=casey.schaufler@intel.com \ --cc=casey@schaufler-ca.com \ --cc=corbet@lwn.net \ --cc=jmorris@namei.org \ --cc=john.johansen@canonical.com \ --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: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.