linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] LSM: Convert security_hook_heads into explicit array of struct list

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, 1 Jun 2017 00:10:07 +0900
From:   Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To:     gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk
Cc:     jmorris@...ei.org, keescook@...omium.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
        casey@...aufler-ca.com, hch@...radead.org, igor.stoppa@...wei.com,
        james.l.morris@...cle.com, paul@...l-moore.com, sds@...ho.nsa.gov
Subject: Re: [PATCH] LSM: Convert security_hook_heads into explicit array of struct list_head

Alan Cox wrote:
> > I saw several companies who ship their embedded devices with
> > single-function LSM modules (e.g. restrict only mount operation and
> > ptrace operation). What is unfortunate is that their LSM modules had
> > never been proposed for upstream, and thus bugs remained unnoticed.
>
> So which of them cannot be done with seccomp ? We have a small tight
> interface for simple things like restricting a few calls.

They restricted based on hard-coded rules. seccomp is too much for their cases.

> 
> > via lack of ability to use LKM-based LSM modules). My customers cannot afford
> > enabling SELinux, but my customers cannot rebuild their kernels because
> > rebuilding makes it even more difficult to get help from support centers.
>
> And "I've loaded this third party module" doesn't ?

Situation is far much better than "I've recompiled this vmlinux". ;-)