linux-kernel - Re: mmap_min_addr and your local LSM (ok, just SELinux)

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: <alpine.LRH.2.00.0907221953190.15799@tundra.namei.org>
Date:	Wed, 22 Jul 2009 20:06:47 +1000 (EST)
From:	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
To:	James Carter <jwcart2@...ho.nsa.gov>
cc:	Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, selinux@...ho.nsa.gov,
	Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>, spender@...ecurity.net,
	Daniel J Walsh <dwalsh@...hat.com>, cl@...ux-foundation.org,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, kees@...flux.net,
	Chad Sellers <csellers@...sys.com>,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
Subject: Re: mmap_min_addr and your local LSM (ok, just SELinux)

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009, James Carter wrote:

> Agreed.  That guarantee has been stated from the very beginning for
> SELinux; we shouldn't move away from it.  Are there other places where
> having an LSM weakens security by default?

There's a similar form of hook in vm_enough_memory, but the SELinux module 
calls the DAC capability check first, so it seems ok from a policy 
writer's point of view (i.e. worst case is they revert to DAC).



- James
-- 
James Morris
<jmorris@...ei.org>
--
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/