linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 00/22] LSM: Full security module stacking

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]

Date:   Tue, 14 Aug 2018 16:50:11 -0700
From:   Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
To:     Jordan Glover <Golden_Miller83@...tonmail.ch>
Cc:     Sargun Dhillon <sargun@...gun.me>,
        LSM <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKLM <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
        Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
        SE Linux <selinux@...ho.nsa.gov>,
        "SMACK-discuss@...ts.01.org" <SMACK-discuss@...ts.01.org>,
        John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
        James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        "Schaufler, Casey" <casey.schaufler@...el.com>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 00/22] LSM: Full security module stacking

On 8/14/2018 4:22 PM, Jordan Glover wrote:
> On August 14, 2018 8:28 PM, Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>>> The blob management part (through "LSM: Sharing of security blobs")
>>>> is ready for prime-time. These changes move the management of
>>>> security blobs out of the security modules and into the security
>>>> module infrastructure. With this change the proposed S.A.R.A,
>>>> LandLock and PTAGS security modules could co-exist with any of
>>>> the existing "major" security modules. The changes reduce some
>>>> code duplication.
>>>> Beyond the blob management there's a bit of clean-up.
>>>> Mounting filesystems had to be changed so that options
>>>> a security module doesn't recognize won't be considered
>>>> a fatal error. The mount infrastructure is somewhat
>>>> more complex than one might assume.
>>> Casey,
>>> Do you think you can break out 1 into its own patch? It seems like
>>> that'd be valuable to everyone.
>> Yes, I think that is a good idea. Landlock, S.A.R.A. and a couple
>> other security modules could be added upstream if this part of the
>> work was available. It would not provide everything needed to stack
>> all the existing modules. I believe there is concern that if this
>> much went upstream the work on finishing what's required to make
>> everything work might be abandoned.
>>
> On the other hand there is concern that those security modules might
> be abandoned if they have to wait until everything is finished :)

There is some truth to that. If we can get commitment from the developers
of those security module to push for getting upstream, a statement of
intent to support additional modules (e.g. Landlock, S.A.R.A.) from a
significant distribution (e.g. Fedora, Ubuntu, SuSE) and ACKs from the
maintainers of the existing modules we should be able to breeze right in.

Yeah, I think that's about all it would take.