linux-kernel - Re: [TOMOYO #7 30/30] Hooks for SAKURA and TOMOYO.

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: <1207747586.21223.413.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil>
Date:	Wed, 09 Apr 2008 09:26:26 -0400
From:	Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>
To:	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
Cc:	Toshiharu Harada <haradats@...data.co.jp>,
	Paul Moore <paul.moore@...com>,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	Kentaro Takeda <takedakn@...data.co.jp>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [TOMOYO #7 30/30] Hooks for SAKURA and TOMOYO.


On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 07:11 -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 05:37:38PM +0900, Toshiharu Harada wrote:
> > LWN article 239962 says, "At the 2006 summit, Linus took a clear
> > position that the use of pathnames for security policies seemed
> > reasonable to him". Current LSM implementation is sufficient for SELinux
> > and other label based MACs but not for pathname-based MACs.
> > This has been argued in the AppAmor thread for quite a long time.
> > Though proposals had been posted by AppArmor and TOMOYO Linux project,
> > none has been merged until now.
> 
> How about an approach which doesn't require the vfsmount to be passed
> down?
> 
> When the rule is put in place, say "No modifications to /etc/passwd",
> look up the inode and major:minor of /etc/passwd.  If there's a rename,
> look up the new inode number.  If it's mounted elsewhere, it doesn't
> matter, they still can't modify it because it has the same
> major:minor:inode.
> 
> Is this workable?

Sounds similar to audit watches, e.g. see audit_add_watch() and
audit_handle_ievent().  That leverages inotify internally.

-- 
Stephen Smalley
National Security Agency

--
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/