linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v14 3/6] LSM: Explicit individual LSM associations

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 01 Aug 2013 18:18:07 -0400
From:	Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To:	Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
Cc:	LKLM <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	LSM <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
	SE Linux <selinux@...ho.nsa.gov>,
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>,
	Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v14 3/6] LSM: Explicit individual LSM associations

On Thursday, August 01, 2013 03:15:00 PM Casey Schaufler wrote:
> On 8/1/2013 2:30 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 01, 2013 11:52:14 AM Casey Schaufler wrote:
> >> On 8/1/2013 11:35 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
> >>> Okay, so if I understand everything correctly, there are no new entries
> >>> in
> >>> /proc relating specifically to NetLabel, XFRM, or Secmark; although
> >>> there
> >>> are new LSM specific entries for the general /proc entries that exist
> >>> now.  Yes?
> >> 
> >> That's correct.
> >> 
> >> There is /sys/kernel/security/present, which tells you which LSM is going
> >> to show up in /proc/.../attr/current.
> >> 
> >> Should we have /sys/kernel/security/XFRM, /sys/kernel/security/secmark,
> >> /sys/kernel/security/NetLabel and /sys/kernel/security/SO_PEERCRED?
> > 
> > Maybe.
> > 
> > While they might be helpful, I'm not 100% certain they are needed and
> > further I'm not sure they are the "right" solution at this point.  Any
> > thoughts, both for and against, are welcome.
> 
> What might be a more correct solution? Assuming, of course, that there's
> a real problem.

Well, like I said, I'm not sure they are needed in the first place, in other 
words, I'm not sure there is a problem.  As for the correct solution, I think 
we need to understand the problem, if there is one, before we can understand 
the solution.

How is that for an answer? :)

In short, I think we are best leaving them out until something comes along 
which requires that we add the /proc entries.

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/