[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6712209.BXb1SVfVxH@sifl>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 17:47:14 -0400
From: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To: Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
Cc: LKLM <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
LSM <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
SE Linux <selinux@...ho.nsa.gov>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>,
Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v14 5/6] LSM: SO_PEERSEC configuration options
On Thursday, July 25, 2013 11:32:23 AM Casey Schaufler wrote:
> Subject: [PATCH v14 5/6] LSM: SO_PEERSEC configuration options
>
> Refine the handling of SO_PEERSEC to enable legacy
> user space runtimes, Fedora in particular, when running
> with multiple LSMs that are capable of providing information
> using getsockopt(). This introduces an additional configuration
> option, and requires that the default be the legacy behavior.
>
> Signed-off-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
...
> --- a/security/Kconfig
> +++ b/security/Kconfig
> @@ -157,17 +157,49 @@ config SECMARK_LSM
> help
> The name of the LSM to use with the networking secmark
>
> -config SECURITY_PLAIN_CONTEXT
> - bool "Backward compatable contexts without lsm='value' formatting"
> - depends on SECURITY_SELINUX || SECURITY_SMACK
> - default y
> +choice
> + depends on SECURITY && (SECURITY_SELINUX || SECURITY_SMACK)
> + prompt "Peersec LSM"
> + default PEERSEC_SECURITY_FIRST
> +
> help
> - Without this value set security context strings will
> - include the name of the lsm with which they are associated
> - even if there is only one LSM that uses security contexts.
> - This matches the way contexts were handled before it was
> - possible to have multiple concurrent security modules.
> - If you are unsure how to answer this question, answer Y.
> + Select the security module that will send attribute
> + information in IP header options.
> + Most SELinux configurations do not take advantage
> + of Netlabel, while all Smack configurations do. Unless
> + there is a need to do otherwise chose Smack in preference
> + to SELinux.
I'm not hugely in love with the help text; the first sentence seems to be all
that is needed, the second seems unnecessary and not exactly fair to the LSMs.
> + config PEERSEC_SECURITY_FIRST
> + bool "First LSM providing for SO_PEERSEC"
> + help
> + Provide the first available LSM's information with SO_PEERSEC
> +
> + config PEERSEC_SECURITY_ALL
> + bool "Use lsm='value'lsm='value' format"
> + help
> + Provide all available security information in SO_PEERSEC
> +
> + config PEERSEC_SECURITY_SELINUX
> + bool "SELinux" if SECURITY_SELINUX=y
> + help
> + Provide SELinux context with SO_PEERSEC
> +
> + config PEERSEC_SECURITY_SMACK
> + bool "Smack" if SECURITY_SMACK=y
> + help
> + Provide Smack labels with SO_PEERSEC
> +
> +endchoice
> +
> +config PEERSEC_LSM
> + string
> + default "smack" if PEERSEC_SECURITY_SMACK
> + default "selinux" if PEERSEC_SECURITY_SELINUX
> + default "(all)" if PEERSEC_SECURITY_ALL
> + default "(first)"
> + help
> + The name of the LSM to use with Netlabel
>
> config SECURITY_PATH
> bool "Security hooks for pathname based access control"
--
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists