linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 4/8] lsm: smack: smack callbacks for kdbus security hooks

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: <2412238.IhG4IMMuSs@sifl>
Date:	Wed, 08 Jul 2015 16:07:11 -0400
From:	Paul Moore <pmoore@...hat.com>
To:	Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
Cc:	Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
	Paul Osmialowski <p.osmialowsk@...sung.com>,
	James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
	Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
	Mark Rustad <mark.d.rustad@...el.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Daniel Mack <daniel@...que.org>,
	David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@...glemail.com>,
	Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...ndz.org>,
	Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
	Karol Lewandowski <k.lewandowsk@...sung.com>,
	Lukasz Skalski <l.skalski@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 4/8] lsm: smack: smack callbacks for kdbus security hooks

On Wednesday, July 08, 2015 09:38:25 AM Casey Schaufler wrote:
> On 7/8/2015 6:42 AM, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> > On 07/08/2015 06:25 AM, Paul Osmialowski wrote:

...

> > If Smack only truly needs 3 hooks, then it begs the question of why
> > there are so many other hooks defined.  Are the other hooks just to
> > support finer-grained distinctions, or is Smack's coverage incomplete?
> 
> I haven't been following kdbus closely for a while, but the original
> intent for Smack and kdbus was that it Smack controls would be on the
> objects involved, and that to accomplish that only a small number of
> hooks would be necessary. After all, Smack uses fewer hooks than SELinux
> on other things. I do agree that without a user there is no point in
> having hooks. If SELinux requires the other hooks we might want to
> hold off on asking for the hooks until the SELinux implementation is
> exposed. I also think that AppArmor should be examined as a potential
> user of the hooks, just to make sure the hooks aren't excessively
> oriented toward subject/object based security modules.

In Paul O.'s defense, we did have some discussion about the reasons for these 
hooks, although that seems like ages ago and I would need to dig through the 
archives (my inbox?) to find the reasoning for each.

However, I don't remember being very comfortable with the hooks back them 
largely due to uncertainty about how we were treating kdbus with respect to 
subjects/objects.  I think it's worth restarting that discussion now before we 
nit pick the patches themselves.

-- 
paul moore
security @ redhat

--
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/