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  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:   Fri, 31 Aug 2018 12:17:49 -0400
From:   Stephen Smalley <>
To:     Paul Moore <>,
        James Morris <>,,,
        Serge Hallyn <>,,
        Jeffrey Vander Stoep <>
Subject: Re: WARNING in apparmor_secid_to_secctx

On 08/31/2018 12:16 PM, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> On 08/31/2018 12:07 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 12:01 PM Stephen Smalley <> 
>> wrote:
>>> On 08/29/2018 10:21 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 7:17 PM, syzbot
>>>> <> wrote:
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>> syzbot found the following crash on:
>>>>> HEAD commit:    817e60a7a2bb Merge branch 'nfp-add-NFP5000-support'
>>>>> git tree:       net-next
>>>>> console output: 
>>>>> kernel config:  
>>>>> dashboard link: 
>>>>> compiler:       gcc (GCC) 8.0.1 20180413 (experimental)
>>>>> Unfortunately, I don't have any reproducer for this crash yet.
>>>>> IMPORTANT: if you fix the bug, please add the following tag to the 
>>>>> commit:
>>>>> Reported-by:
>>>> Hi John, Tyler,
>>>> I've switched syzbot from selinux to apparmor as we discussed on lss:
>>> Sorry, does this mean that you are no longer testing selinux via syzbot?
>>>    That seems unfortunate.  SELinux is default-enabled and used in
>>> Fedora, RHEL and all derivatives (e.g. CentOS), and mandatory in Android
>>> (and seemingly getting some use in ChromeOS now as well, at least for
>>> the Android container and possibly wider), so it seems unwise to drop it
>>> from your testing altogether.  I was under the impression that you were
>>> just going to add apparmor to your testing matrix, not drop selinux
>>> altogether.
>> It is also important to note that testing with SELinux enabled but no
>> policy loaded is not going to be very helpful (last we talked that is
>> what syzbot is/was doing).  While syzbot did uncover some issues
>> relating to the enabled-no-policy case, those are much less
>> interesting and less relevant than the loaded-policy case.
> I had thought that they had switched over to at least loading a policy 
> but possibly left it in permissive mode because the base distribution 
> didn't properly support SELinux out of the box.  But I may be mistaken.
> Regardless, the right solution is to migrate to testing with a policy 
> loaded not to stop testing altogether.
> Optimally, they'd test on at least one distribution/OS where SELinux is 
> in fact supported out of the box, e.g. CentOS, Android, and/or ChromeOS.

Or Fedora, of course.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists