linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH BUGFIX -rc3] Smack: Don't register smackfs if we're not loaded

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]

Message-ID: <20080305124445.GA19549@ubuntu>
Date:	Wed, 5 Mar 2008 14:44:45 +0200
From:	"Ahmed S. Darwish" <darwish.07@...il.com>
To:	Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH BUGFIX -rc3] Smack: Don't register smackfs if we're not
	loaded

On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 09:45:04AM -0800, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
> > To: Ahmed S. Darwish <darwish.07@...il.com>
> > Cc: Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>; LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 4, 2008 9:21:19 AM
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH BUGFIX -rc3] Smack: Don't register smackfs if we're not loaded
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Tue, 4 Mar 2008, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote:
> > > 
> > > Smackfs initialization without an enabled Smack leads to
> > > an early Oops that renders the system unusable.
> > 
> > I really think this is bogus. Global enables like this are just wrong, and 
> > a sign that something else bad is going on.
> > 
> > What is the oops? Why does it happen?
...
> 
> One solution would be to tighten the smackfs code so that it
> handles the uninitialized LSM case properly.
> 

IMHO no smackfs code should ever execute if smack isn't loaded.

This means catching it from the very fist step where it registers
itself in init_smk_fs instead of doing several if(we're enabled) cases
in the code path.

The solution should be a _general_ solution, _not_ a SMACK one cause 
SELinux sufferes from exactly the same problem.

a.k.a:

LSMs need a scalable way to know if they're enabled that makes 
everyone happy ( especially Linus ;) ).

Regads to all,

-- 

"Better to light a candle, than curse the darkness"

Ahmed S. Darwish
Homepage: http://darwish.07.googlepages.com
Blog: http://darwish-07.blogspot.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/