linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] integrity: fix IMA inode leak

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: <1244486655.3277.65.camel@dyn9002018117.watson.ibm.com>
Date:	Mon, 08 Jun 2009 14:44:15 -0400
From:	Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>,
	Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ibm.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Serge Hallyn <serue@...ibm.com>,
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	David Safford <safford@...son.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] integrity: fix IMA inode leak

On Mon, 2009-06-08 at 09:15 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 8 Jun 2009, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > 
> > Today the security calls are synomymous with MAC.  If I understand
> > correctly, you're suggesting we need to have a single security layer,
> > which, depending on the hook, calls either MAC or integrity, or both.
> 
> I don't think we need a single security layer per se.
> 
> But I do think that we _already_ hide IMA conceptually under the 
> "security/" subdirectory, and that the VFS layer shouldn't need to care 
> about whatever internal details.
> 
> We should not have generic code end up having to know about all the 
> details, when we already have a conceptual nesting. It would be much 
> better for generic code to just have to worry about one security hook that 
> then encompasses all the models, than having several different hooks for 
> each detail.
> 
> 		Linus

Ok, so instead of having a full fledge single security layer, only add
the security layer for those places where both the LSM hooks and IMA
co-exist: security_file_mmap, security_bprm_check, security_inode_alloc,
security_inode_free, and security_file_free. As the LSM hooks are called
'security_XXXX', the call would look something like:

security_all_inode_free() {
        ima_inode_free()
        security_inode_free()
}

Mimi Zohar


--
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/