linux-kernel - Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static interface)

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:04:37 +0100 (CET)
From:	"Rob Meijer" <capibara@...all.nl>
To:	"Crispin Cowan" <crispin@...spincowan.com>
Cc:	rmeijer@...all.nl, casey@...aufler-ca.com,
	"Chris Wright" <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
	"Adrian Bunk" <bunk@...nel.org>,
	"Simon Arlott" <simon@...e.lp0.eu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	"Jan Engelhardt" <jengelh@...putergmbh.de>,
	"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Andreas Gruenbacher" <agruen@...e.de>,
	"Thomas Fricaccia" <thomas_fricacci@...oo.com>,
	"Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <jeremy@...p.org>,
	"James Morris" <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	"Giacomo Catenazzi" <cate@...ian.org>,
	"Alan Cox" <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to      
     static interface)

On Mon, October 29, 2007 11:24, Crispin Cowan wrote:

>> Thus IMHO it may be a good idea to instead of a maintainer for LSM
>> modules as proposed, alternatively a maintainer for each formal model
>> may be more appropriate. This also would require module builders to
>> first
>> think about what formal model they are actualy using, thus resulting in
>> cleaner module design.
>>
> I *really* dislike this idea. It seems to set up the situation that the
> only acceptable modules are those that follow some "formal" model.
> Problems:
>
>     * What qualifies as a formal model? This becomes an arbitrary litmus
>       test, depending on whether the model was originally published in a
>       sufficiently snooty forum.
>     * What if someone invents a new model that has not been "formalized"
>       yet? Should Linux be forced to wait until the idea has been
>       through the academic mill before we allow someone to try
>       implementing a module for the idea?

I may have been stating things a bit to strong when talking only about
"formal" models only. But possibly you could just define the non-formal
experimental models as a single group.

The thing I was trying to propose was aimed at the problem that if someone
proposes a patch to the LSM base code that he/she feels is needed to
complete an LSM module that implements a particular (formal) model,
he/she would end up explaining and/or defending both the 'model', the module
and its requirement for the patch.

What I tried to propose is to assign some sort of maintainer role for each
(formal) model, and let these roles take care of the module/patch part of
stuff, while the module writer would only need to defend/discuss the the
patch with the model maintainer.

>     * The proposal only allows a single implementation of each formal
>       model. In theory, theory is just like practice, but in practice it
>       is not. SMACK and SELinux follow substantially similar formal
>       models (not exactly the same) so should we exclude one and keep
>       the other? No, of course not, because in practice they are very
>       different.

I would think the two may benefit from a role as described above.
But I was thinking more in the line of new modules that may again
implement this same model, and would thus benefit from interaction with
this 'model maintainer' role.


Rob

-
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/