linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH (mmotm-2008-12-02-17-08)] Introduce security_path

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:	Thu, 4 Dec 2008 12:20:05 -0600
From:	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
To:	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Cc:	sds@...ho.nsa.gov, jmorris@...ei.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, takedakn@...data.co.jp,
	haradats@...data.co.jp
Subject: Re: [PATCH (mmotm-2008-12-02-17-08)] Introduce
	security_path_set/clear() hooks.

Quoting Tetsuo Handa (penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp):
> Hello.
> 
> Stephen Smalley wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 17:56 +0900, Kentaro Takeda wrote:
> > > Stephen, Serge,
> > > Here is the patch for introducing new security_path_set()/clear() hooks.
> > > 
> > > This patch enables LSM module to remember vfsmount's pathname so that it can 
> > > calculate absolute pathname in security_inode_*(). Since actual MAC can be 
> > > performed after DAC, there will not be any noise in auditing and learning 
> > > features. This patch currently assumes that the vfsmount's pathname is stored in 
> > > hash table in LSM module. (Should I use stack memory?)
> > > 
> > > Since security_inode_*() are not always called after security_path_set(), 
> > > security_path_clear() hook is needed to free the remembered pathname.
> > 
> > Your security_path_set()/security_path_clear() pairs look rather similar
> > to mnt_want_write()/mnt_drop_write() pairs.  What if you were to call
> > your hooks from those functions, and then you would only need to add
> > further hook calls in the case of read-only and execute/search checks?
> 
> Right. Locations of inserting security_path_set()/security_path_clear() pairs
> are subset of mnt_want_write()/mnt_drop_write() pairs. Thus, we can insert
> security_path_set()/security_path_clear() pairs into
> mnt_want_write()/mnt_drop_write() pairs, if we can tolerate performance
> regression. According to our rough measurement, there is about 8 - 22% of
> performance regression.

... compared to what, exactly?

If having CONFIG_SECURITY_PATH=y but TOMOYO  disabled has this kind of
regression against just not having CONFIG_SECURITY_PATH, then no that is
not acceptable.

-serge
--
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/