netdev - Re: LSM stacking and the network access controls

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:	Wed, 27 Feb 2013 12:31:22 -0500
From:	Paul Moore <pmoore@...hat.com>
To:	Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	selinux@...ho.nsa.gov, Andy King <acking@...are.com>,
	Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@...hat.com>,
	Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: LSM stacking and the network access controls

On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 08:51:50 AM Casey Schaufler wrote:
> On 2/27/2013 8:43 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 03:12:31 PM Casey Schaufler wrote:
> >> On 2/26/2013 1:21 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> >>> On Monday, February 25, 2013 03:06:14 PM Casey Schaufler wrote:
> >>>> The set of LSMs, the order they are invoked, which LSM
> >>>> uses /proc/.../attr/current and which LSM uses Netlabel,
> >>>> XFRM and secmark are all determined by Kconfig. You can
> >>>> specify a limited set of LSMs using security= at boot,
> >>>> but not the networking configuration.
> >>> 
> >>> That's unfortunate.  I'm _really_ not in favor of that, I would much
> >>> rather see the non-shared LSM functionality assigned at the same time as
> >>> the stacking order.  I'm not sure I'd NACK the current approach, or
> >>> even\
> >>> if anyone would care that I did, but that is how I'm currently leaning
> >>> with this split (build vs runtime) selection.
> >> 
> >> I'm not against that approach. How would you see it working?
> >> 
> >> The distro compiles in all the LSMs.
> >> They specify that SELinux gets xfrm and secmark.
> >> They specify the Smack gets Netlabel.
> >> They tell (the new and improved) AppArmor to eschew networking.
> >> They specify a boot order of "selinux,smack,apparmor,yama"
> >> (They left off tomoyo for tax purposes).
> >> 
> >> On the boot line, the user types "security=apparmor".
> >> 
> >> What should happen?
> > 
> > Okay, I misunderstood what was specified at boot time; I thought the
> > stacking order could be defined at boot but based on your example I'm
> > guessing the stacking order is defined at compile time and you can only
> > enable/disable LSMs at boot?
> 
> Well, no. It looks as if I gave a poor example.
> 
> 	"security=apparmor,tomoyo,selinux"
> 
> is legitimate and indicates that AppArmor goes first,
> then TOMOYO, then SELinux. No LSM gets NetLabel because
> that was allocated to Smack. SELinux gets XFRM and secmark.

All the more reason to either adopt a mechanism that allows you to assign the 
non-shareable resources on the command line along with the stacking 
configuration or simply adopt a first-come-first-serve policy.

-- 
paul moore
security and virtualization @ redhat

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html