linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/8] kexec/firmware: support system wide policy requiring signatures

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:   Mon, 04 Jun 2018 15:53:40 -0400
From:   Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>
Cc:     Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
        James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
        linux-integrity <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>,
        Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        kexec@...ts.infradead.org, Andres Rodriguez <andresx7@...il.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/8] kexec/firmware: support system wide policy
 requiring signatures

On Mon, 2018-06-04 at 14:32 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Mimi Zohar (zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com):
> > On Tue, 2018-05-29 at 14:01 -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > > Instead of adding the security_kernel_read_file LSM hook - or defining a
> > > wrapper for security_kernel_read_file LSM hook and adding it, or
> > > renaming the existing hook to security_kernel_read_data() and adding it
> > > - in places where the kernel isn't reading a file, this version of the
> > > patch set defines a new LSM hook named security_kernel_load_data().
> > > 
> > > The new LSM hook does not replace the existing security_kernel_read_file
> > > LSM hook, which is still needed, but defines a new LSM hook allowing
> > > LSMs and IMA-appraisal the opportunity to fail loading userspace
> > > provided file/data.
> > > 
> > > The only difference between the two LSM hooks is the LSM hook name and a
> > > file descriptor.  Whether this is cause enough for requiring a new LSM
> > > hook, is left to the security community.
> > 
> > Paul does not have a preference as to adding a new LSM hook or calling
> > the existing hook.  Either way is fine, as long as both the new and
> > existing hooks call the existing function.
> > 
> > Casey didn't like the idea of a wrapper.
> > James suggested renaming the LSM hook.
> > 
> > The maintainers for the callers of the LSM hook prefer a meaningful
> > LSM hook name.  The "null" argument is not as much of a concern.  Only
> > Eric seems to be asking for a separate, new LSM hook, without the
> > "null" argument.
> > 
> > Unless someone really objects, to accommodate Eric we'll define a new
> > LSM hook named security_kernel_load_data.  Eric, are you planning on
> 
> I'm confused - isn't that what this patchset did? :)

Right.  I'm trying to get consensus whether it is needed.

> 
> > Ack'ing patches 1 & 2?
> > 
> > Mimi
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>