linux-kernel - Re: A basic question about the security

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: <1262281847.22369.0.camel@moss-terrapins.epoch.ncsc.mil>
Date:	Thu, 31 Dec 2009 12:50:47 -0500
From:	"David P. Quigley" <dpquigl@...ho.nsa.gov>
To:	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
Cc:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
	Michael Stone <michael@...top.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, David Lang <david@...g.hm>,
	Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
	Valdis Kletnieks <Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu>,
	Bryan Donlan <bdonlan@...il.com>,
	Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>,
	"C. Scott Ananian" <cscott@...ott.net>,
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	Bernie Innocenti <bernie@...ewiz.org>,
	Mark Seaborn <mrs@...hic-beasts.com>,
	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
	Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Subject: Re: A basic question about the security_* hooks

On Thu, 2009-12-24 at 18:05 -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Eric W. Biederman (ebiederm@...ssion.com):
> > Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com> writes:
> > 
> > > I'm behind you 100%. Use the LSM. Your module is exactly why we have
> > > the blessed thing. Once we get a collection of otherwise unrelated
> > > LSMs the need for a stacker will be sufficiently evident that we'll
> > > be able to get one done properly.
> > 
> > My immediate impression is that the big limitation today is the
> > sharing of the void * security data members of strucutres.
> > 
> > Otherwise multiple security modules could be as simple as.
> > list_for_each(mod)
> >         if (mod->op(...) != 0)
> > 		return -EPERM.
> > 
> > It isn't hard to multiplex a single data field into several with a
> > nice little abstraction.
> > 
> > With my maintainer of a general purpose kernel hat on I would love to
> > be able to build in all of the security modules and select at boot
> > time which ones were enabled.
> 
> You're supposed to be able to do that now - use the "security=smack"
> or whatever boot option (see security/security.c:choose_lsm() ).
> 
> -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/


Ubuntu and SuSe currently do this and it is what allows them to ship a
kernel with both AppArmor and SELinux support built in.

Dave

--
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/