linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/7] security: rename security_kernel_read

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

Message-ID: <871sdzy0nv.fsf@xmission.com>
Date:   Fri, 25 May 2018 14:51:00 -0500
From:   ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:     James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
Cc:     Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        "Luis R . Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        kexec@...ts.infradead.org, Andres Rodriguez <andresx7@...il.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/7] security: rename security_kernel_read_file() hook

James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org> writes:

> On Thu, 24 May 2018, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
>> Below is where I suggest you start on sorting out these security hooks.
>> - Adding a security_kernel_arg to catch when you want to allow/deny the
>>   use of an argument to a syscall.  What security_kernel_file_read and
>>   security_kernel_file_post_read have been abused for.
>
> NAK. This abstraction is too semantically weak.
>
> LSM hooks need to map to stronger semantics so we can reason about what 
> the hook and the policy is supposed to be mediating.

I will take that as an extremely weak nack as all I did was expose the
existing code and what the code is currently doing.  I don't see how you
can NAK what is already being merged and used.

I will be happy to see a better proposal.

The best I can see is to take each and every syscall that my patch
is calling syscall_kernel_arg and make it it's own hook without an
enumeration.  I did not see any real duplication between the cases in my
enumeration so I don't think that will be a problem.  Maybe a bit of a
challenge for loadpin but otherwise not.

Thank you in this for understanding why I am having problems with the
current hook.

Eric