linux-kernel - Re: [GIT] Security subsystem updates for 3.9

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1361473420.29360.97.camel@falcor1>
Date:	Thu, 21 Feb 2013 14:03:40 -0500
From:	Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT] Security subsystem updates for 3.9

On Thu, 2013-02-21 at 10:21 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > Almost, and enforcing file integrity is enabled.  The merged result
> > should look like what's contained in
> > linux-integrity/next-upstreamed-patches:
> >
> > int ima_module_check(struct file *file)
> > {
> >         if (!file) {
> >                 if ((ima_appraise & IMA_APPRAISE_MODULES) &&
> >                     (ima_appraise & IMA_APPRAISE_ENFORCE)) {
> > #ifndef CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_FORCE
> >                         return -EACCES; /* INTEGRITY_UNKNOWN */
> > #endif
> >                 }
> >                 return 0;
> 
> Ugh. The placement of that #ifndef is just horrible, please don't do
> that. Just add it around the whole if-statement rather than around
> just the return. Not because the compiler can't optimize away the
> tests, but because it's much more obvious to a *human* what the ifndef
> actually does.

Having the 'ifndef' is ugly.  Thanks for the suggestion on making it
less ugly.

> Anyway, I don't have the IMA_APPRAISE_ENFORCE bit checking, it wasn't
> obvious from the conflict, so somebody will need to add that.

Commit "750943a ima: remove enforce checking duplication" moved the test
to process_measurement().

Because commit "a7f2a36 ima: fallback to MODULE_SIG_ENFORCE for existing
kernel module syscall" never went into linux-security/next, subsequent
patches resulted in this merge conflict.

I'll post an additional patch.

thanks,

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/