From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D355C10F27 for ; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 13:30:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F93120873 for ; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 13:30:36 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="O63n39Ul" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729473AbgCKNaf (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Mar 2020 09:30:35 -0400 Received: from mail-oi1-f194.google.com ([209.85.167.194]:32790 "EHLO mail-oi1-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729103AbgCKNaf (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Mar 2020 09:30:35 -0400 Received: by mail-oi1-f194.google.com with SMTP id r7so1886512oij.0; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 06:30:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ZsSuSLKEfu3I1SAJl6xAjr3wjSOLPeFy3yPY3Iv28F8=; b=O63n39UljFStteXPWaHbRbdpOd2uAMy0s5j2fnaLfILxlCicixRYjHxQw6QvFk++1b VaGfDRjDs1bbaWSa4F64rl+av5D5RoudRzzzYBvbXP8ZHU6oiBIUnnud29vhj85vpwHu LHpSKss9nDNTi3xXzDulVL99eHFHJgf9/eYIQk2qA9+HwTifaclc4a9B7vluubeFe+eM LWsG3GcAZOYFOp8996mmBZ177nTLZzQNxrbEXCCH7Aj4mGIMNkT5rKcUwm/kBge5Epa/ hbTvvnIXyorhpxoO9xjdlF8PkkXrEpHn7RUAN89qb4Dh+48hY9BfwZkHd3NPSydmQUGl jVLA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ZsSuSLKEfu3I1SAJl6xAjr3wjSOLPeFy3yPY3Iv28F8=; b=sJhqy5qCwY0coQYSHPGsdHIv1pvXGIA2RrPP7XlRXdlUBOLlbEhFnkI0eOF/mXArN/ ZPDJTzZkqO0rKX2yKZMumj1GDmKcbaKxbHMGyfICT031H8XWlaVFUiF2wbRI+6etejim 2YHQqKjdNBUZ8/2c5ijy53w4BQS0RzdaAqqxYK2tCldp+T6/jXswvjmMxmMMka+PLoP5 +1AUhwbWvcE0Y5V+0ipx8+Bl0bDWBNANq7luye9lYPkKwwCXkvNN5ocVjcRul5KQXHSH GuIHVKHLGtZ5uq3gsEAqvryKiqEqnGj0l+WW2jJNN4l+RxM769GbYe4VgalV57I5Uwyh i3FA== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ2XuStqeHLMwv6499PxPg8aaFarLDeb1BvQWVRyHz1F8ewfZjqB 7CKWCzyuj5YE0YZRmWiGBAUn1O3eyuTstF4uv1A= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vtFqcIvIEMwdHZH1rUNUjfICLAyZmD0fE5Ggd/lDRNjab4mHbySl80mFwEwNzKaMPjOQGEMFq6AFbJCgSHIM9c= X-Received: by 2002:aca:3544:: with SMTP id c65mr1865799oia.160.1583933434832; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 06:30:34 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200213194157.5877-1-sds@tycho.nsa.gov> In-Reply-To: From: Stephen Smalley Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2020 09:31:34 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] security,anon_inodes,kvm: enable security support for anon inodes To: Daniel Colascione Cc: Casey Schaufler , Sandeep Patil , Paul Moore , LSM List , Linux FS Devel , Al Viro , SElinux list , kvm@vger.kernel.org, Nick Kralevich , Stephen Smalley Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: selinux-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: selinux@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 5:51 PM Daniel Colascione wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 11:25 AM Stephen Smalley > wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 2:11 PM Daniel Colascione wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 10:50 AM Daniel Colascione wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 10:11 AM Casey Schaufler wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 2/17/2020 4:14 PM, Paul Moore wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 2:41 PM Stephen Smalley wrote: > > > > > >> We are primarily posting this RFC patch now so that the two different > > > > > >> approaches can be concretely compared. We anticipate a hybrid of the > > > > > >> two approaches being the likely outcome in the end. In particular > > > > > >> if support for allocating a separate inode for each of these files > > > > > >> is acceptable, then we would favor storing the security information > > > > > >> in the inode security blob and using it instead of the file security > > > > > >> blob. > > > > > > Bringing this back up in hopes of attracting some attention from the > > > > > > fs-devel crowd and Al. As Stephen already mentioned, from a SELinux > > > > > > perspective we would prefer to attach the security blob to the inode > > > > > > as opposed to the file struct; does anyone have any objections to > > > > > > that? > > > > > > > > > > Sorry for the delay - been sick the past few days. > > > > > > > > > > I agree that the inode is a better place than the file for information > > > > > about the inode. This is especially true for Smack, which uses > > > > > multiple extended attributes in some cases. I don't believe that any > > > > > except the access label will be relevant to anonymous inodes, but > > > > > I can imagine security modules with policies that would. > > > > > > > > > > I am always an advocate of full xattr support. It goes a long > > > > > way in reducing the number and complexity of special case interfaces. > > > > > > > > It sounds like we have broad consensus on using the inode to hold > > > > security information, implying that anon_inodes should create new > > > > inodes. Do any of the VFS people want to object? > > > > > > Ping? > > > > I'd recommend refreshing your patch series to incorporate feedback on > > the previous version and re-post, > > including viro and linux-fsdevel on the cc, and see if they have any > > comments on it. > > I don't think there's anything in the patch series that needs to > change right now. AFAICT, we're still just waiting on comment from the > VFS people, who should be on this thread. Did I miss something? There was some discussion on the SELinux bits in patch 2/3. I would take the silence on the vfs bits as implicit acceptance until you hear otherwise and just submit a v2 that addresses the SELinux bits.