[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48F54BE0.3090006@schaufler-ca.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 18:48:16 -0700
From: Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
To: Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>
Subject: Re: [bug] latest -git boot hang
Stephen Smalley wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 17:12 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
>> * Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Right now i have about 40 such annotations for -tip testing:
>>>>
>>>> fs/Kconfig: depends on BROKEN_BOOT_ALLOWED
>>>> fs/Kconfig: depends on BROKEN_BOOT_ALLOWED
>>>> security/selinux/Kconfig: depends on BROKEN_BOOT_ALLOWED
>>>> security/smack/Kconfig: depends on BROKEN_BOOT_ALLOWED
>>>> security/Kconfig: depends on BROKEN_BOOT_ALLOWED
>>>>
>>> What in particular under fs/Kconfig and security/*Kconfig falls into
>>> this category, and why? What constitutes a "generic distro bootup"?
>>> For distros that support SELinux, it obviously shouldn't break the
>>> bootup (there have of course been cases where it has, but those were
>>> bugs that have been addressed, including the recent /proc/net
>>> breakage), and for other distros, it should yield no effect as no
>>> policy will be loaded and thus SELinux just allows everything.
>>>
>> got this one for rootplug:
>>
>> --- linux.orig/security/Kconfig
>> +++ linux/security/Kconfig
>> @@ -93,6 +93,11 @@ config SECURITY_FILE_CAPABILITIES
>> config SECURITY_ROOTPLUG
>> bool "Root Plug Support"
>> depends on USB=y && SECURITY
>> +
>> + # fails with hard-to-debug "could not find init" boot failure
>> + depends on BROKEN_BOOT_ALLOWED
>> + select BROKEN_BOOT
>>
>
> Makes sense - rootplug truly is "specialized".
>
>
>> and this one:
>>
>> --- linux.orig/security/selinux/Kconfig
>> +++ linux/security/selinux/Kconfig
>> @@ -97,6 +97,11 @@ config SECURITY_SELINUX_CHECKREQPROT_VAL
>> config SECURITY_SELINUX_ENABLE_SECMARK_DEFAULT
>> bool "NSA SELinux enable new secmark network controls by default"
>> depends on SECURITY_SELINUX
>> +
>> + # old system booted up with this cannot ssh out
>> + depends on BROKEN_BOOT_ALLOWED
>> + select BROKEN_BOOT
>>
>
> What is the oldest distro you test against? This one does need to be
> disabled for distros that predate the policy support for secmark, but
> we'd really like to deprecate and ultimately remove the legacy network
> controls from SELinux.
>
>
>> i also have this temporary annotation:
>>
>> --- linux.orig/security/smack/Kconfig
>> +++ linux/security/smack/Kconfig
>> @@ -1,6 +1,9 @@
>> config SECURITY_SMACK
>> bool "Simplified Mandatory Access Control Kernel Support"
>> depends on NETLABEL && SECURITY_NETWORK
>> + # breaks networking (TCP connections)
>> + depends on BROKEN_BOOT_ALLOWED
>> + select BROKEN_BOOT
>> default n
>> help
>> This selects the Simplified Mandatory Access Control Kernel.
>>
>> has this problem been fixed? A test is only a success if the freshly
>> booted kernel can autonomously ssh out over a real network and can
>> indicate success to the QA server. I've got a good mix of old and new
>> distros as well.
>>
>
> I thought that Casey had changed Smack such that packets wouldn't be
> explicitly labeled by default when they were at the default/ambient
> network label and thus wouldn't break sshd.
>
Stephen is correct. The fix has been in for some time.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists