linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] selinux: add selinux_is

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]

Date:   Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:30:02 +0200
From:   Sebastien Buisson <sbuisson.ddn@...il.com>
To:     Paul Moore <pmoore@...hat.com>, sds@...ho.nsa.gov
Cc:     linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, selinux@...ho.nsa.gov,
        william.c.roberts@...el.com, serge@...lyn.com,
        james.l.morris@...cle.com, Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>,
        Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
        Sebastien Buisson <sbuisson@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selinux: add selinux_is_enforced() function

2017-04-12 13:55 GMT+02:00 Paul Moore <pmoore@...hat.com>:
> As currently written this code isn't something we would want to merge
> upstream for two important reasons:
>
> * No abstraction layer at the LSM interface.  The core kernel code
> should not call directly into any specific LSM, all interaction should
> go through the LSM hooks.

The idea behind this patch and the other one was to replicate what is
done with selinux_is_enabled(). As I understand it now,
selinux_is_enabled() should remain the only exception to the LSM
hooks.
So do you agree if I propose a new security_is_enforced() function at
the LSM abstraction layer, which will be hooked to a
selinux_is_enforced() function defined inside the SELinux LSM?