linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 9/9] Protect SELinux initialized state with pmalloc

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: <34d804c6-8aea-52ee-41b8-139aaf188d80@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 24 Apr 2018 18:35:18 +0400
From:   Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...il.com>
To:     Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>, willy@...radead.org,
        keescook@...omium.org, paul@...l-moore.com, mhocko@...nel.org,
        corbet@....net
Cc:     labbott@...hat.com, david@...morbit.com, rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
        Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/9] Protect SELinux initialized state with pmalloc



On 24/04/18 16:49, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> On 04/23/2018 08:54 AM, Igor Stoppa wrote:

[...]

>> The patch is probably in need of rework, to make it fit better with the
>> new SELinux internal data structures, however it shows how to deny an
>> easy target to the attacker.
> 
> I know this is just an example, but not sure why you wouldn't just protect the
> entire selinux_state.

Because I have much more to discuss about SELinux, which would involve 
the whole state, the policyDB and the AVC

I will start a separate thread about that. This was merely as simple as 
possible example of the use of the API.

I just wanted to have a feeling about how it would be received :-)

> Note btw that the selinux_state encapsulation is preparatory work
> for selinux namespaces [1], at which point the structure is in fact dynamically allocated
> and there can be multiple instances of it.  That however is work-in-progress, highly experimental,
> and might not ever make it upstream (if we can't resolve the various challenges it poses in a satisfactory
> way).

Yes, I am aware of this and I would like to discuss also in the light of 
the future directions.

I just didn't want to waste too much time on something that you might 
want to change radically in a month :-)

I already was caught once by surprise when ss_initalized disappeared 
just when I had a patch ready for it :-)

--
igor