linux-kernel - Re: [kernel-hardening] [PATCH 0/6] LSM: Security module blob management

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 9 Jun 2017 13:54:25 +1000 (AEST)
From:   James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
To:     Matt Brown <matt@...tt.com>
cc:     Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
        LSM <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
        Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
        Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        "kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" 
        <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
        LKLM <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [kernel-hardening] [PATCH 0/6] LSM: Security module blob
 management

On Thu, 8 Jun 2017, Matt Brown wrote:

> On 6/8/17 4:43 PM, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> > Subject: [PATCH 0/6] LSM: Security module blob management
> > 
> > This patch set moves management of security blobs out of
> > the Linux security modules and into the security module
> > infrastructure. This allows "major" security modules that
> > use blobs to be stacked, just as "minor" modules that
> > do not use blobs can be stacked today. It stops short of
> > providing a safe interface for the Netlabel and SO_PEERSEC.
> > As a result, any of the existing security modules may be
> > used in combination except for SELinux and Smack.
> 
> Very excited about this! I can definitely see use cases for special
> purpose LSMs that require data blobs but do not replace things like
> SELinux, SMACK or AppArmor. I have had a few ideas recently that would
> not be possible under the current setup of one shared blob.

Please post details of these ideas once you have say a prototype working 
with Casey's patches.


-- 
James Morris
<jmorris@...ei.org>