linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 13/21] evm: add evm_inode_post

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: <1305766540.3304.44.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Wed, 18 May 2011 20:55:40 -0400
From:	Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
Cc:	Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com>,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernl.org, cluster-devel@...hat.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	David Safford <safford@...son.ibm.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
	Dmitry Kasatkin <dmitry.kasatkin@...ia.com>,
	Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ibm.com>,
	Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
	Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 13/21] evm: add evm_inode_post_init call in gfs2

On Mon, 2011-05-16 at 12:25 -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote: 
> On 5/16/2011 11:48 AM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-05-16 at 11:23 -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:

> >> There is a very real possibility that multiple concurrent LSMs will
> >> be supported before too long. Smack already uses multiple attributes
> >> (SMACK64, SMACK64EXEC) on a file. Getting all the attributes in a
> >> single call could result in an interface that requires parsing a
> >> string argument, and we all know how popular those are. Introducing
> >> an interface that we know isn't going to accommodate this upcoming
> >> direction does not seem prudent.
> > I would think that Smack would benefit from Steven's suggestion of
> > returning an array of xattrs. Without his suggestion, I'm not sure how
> > you are, or planning on, initializing multiple xattrs from a single LSM,
> > unless of course you're not using security_inode_init_security().
> 
> The good news is that Smack has one required attribute. The others
> are for special purposes and will usually be absent. It is easy to
> imagine an LSM that always uses multiple attributes on a given file.
> 
> Yes, the array of xattr structures makes sense for any one LSM,
> but there still needs to be the potential for multiple calls for
> the multiple LSM case. I can't see that going away without a radical
> LSM restructuring.
> 
> > Multiple LSMs calling security_inode_init_security() will be an issue
> > for EVM, as EVM assumes there is a single LSM xattr on which to base the
> > initial hmac.
> 
> That is far from the biggest issue with multiple LSMs, but is definitely
> something to worry about.

Ok. After thinking about this a bit more, moving
evm_inode_init_security() into security_inode_init_security() only works
for the single LSM and EVM case, but not for the multiple LSMs and EVM
case, as the 'stacker' would call each LSM's
security_inode_iint_security().  Having the 'stacker' return an array of
xattrs would make sense and, at the same time, resolve the EVM issue. In
evm_inode_post_init_security(), EVM could then walk the list of xattrs.

Mimi



--
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/