archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Paul Moore <>
To: Stephen Smalley <>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] selinux: add SELinux hooks for lockdown integrity and confidentiality
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 12:48:51 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 10:01 AM Stephen Smalley <> wrote:
> On 10/31/19 5:59 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 9:16 AM Stephen Smalley <> wrote:
> >> Add SELinux access control hooks for lockdown integrity and
> >> confidentiality. This effectively mimics the current implementation of
> >> lockdown (caveat noted below). If lockdown is enabled alongside SELinux,
> >> then the lockdown access control will take precedence over the SELinux
> >> lockdown implementation.
> >>
> >> Note that this SELinux implementation allows the integrity and
> >> confidentiality reasons to be controlled independently from one another.
> >> Thus, in an SELinux policy, one could allow integrity operations while
> >> blocking confidentiality operations.


> > I don't have any objections to adding a hook to control access to the
> > lockdown functionality (I think it's a good idea), but I am a little
> > nervous about the granularity of the control.  Sticking with just an
> > integrity and a confidentiality permission seems okay, but I worry
> > about adding additional permissions until we have a better idea of how
> > the lockdown functionality is adopted by developers and we see how the
> > lockdown_reason evolves.
> Ok, so let's discuss what if anything else is needed for a final non-RFC
> version of this patch.
> One thing that I wondered about was whether we ought to include the
> reason information in the audit record as supplemental data via a new
> LSM_AUDIT_DATA_* type for help in policy debugging / development.
> However, the lockdown_reasons[] string array is presently private to the
> lockdown module so we would have to export that or replicate it for
> creating a string representation of the reason if we were to do so.
> That would expose the reasons in terms of audit data but not as a basis
> for the permission check. Note that the lockdown module logs these
> reason strings via pr_notice() when it denies access, so it appears that
> exposing the strings as part of audit data would not introduce any extra
> kernel stable ABI guarantees?

That is an interesting question: do we consider dmesg output to be
part of the stable kernel API?  My hunch would be "no", as I've seen
things change quite a bit there over the years, but IANL (I Am Not
Linus).  However, that said, logging a reason string via audit seems
like a good idea (especially since there is presently a many-to-one
mapping between reasons and the SELinux permission).  Further, while
the audit field name is part of the kernel API, the value is much more

> I also wasn't sure about the pr_warn() above.  If we reach it, it is
> effectively a kernel bug. We could mirror what the lockdown module does
> in lockdown_is_locked_down(), i.e. use WARN() instead.  Of course, the
> SELinux hook won't even be reached in this case if the lockdown module
> is enabled, but the lockdown module could be disabled so I guess we need
> to check it too.

Since this seems security relevant, I wonder if we should be using SELINUX_ERR?

> If we take the lockdown class with just integrity and confidentiality
> permissions now and later introduce finer granularity, we'll presumably
> need a policy capability to select whether the coarse-grained or
> fine-grained permissions are used.

True, although I'm not overly worried about the need to use policy
capabilities; I'm more worried about jumping into too fine a
granularity before we see how this will be used.

paul moore

  reply	other threads:[~2019-11-07 17:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-10-30 13:16 [RFC PATCH] selinux: add SELinux hooks for lockdown integrity and confidentiality Stephen Smalley
2019-10-30 15:29 ` Stephen Smalley
2019-10-31  9:47   ` Paul Moore
2019-10-31  9:59 ` Paul Moore
2019-10-31 14:01   ` Stephen Smalley
2019-11-07 17:48     ` Paul Moore [this message]
2019-11-07 18:07       ` Stephen Smalley
2019-11-08 18:38         ` Paul Moore

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:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \

* 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).