linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/10] procfs: add smack subdir to attrs

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:   Tue, 11 Sep 2018 17:01:21 -0700
From:   Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
To:     "Ahmed S. Darwish" <darwish.07@...il.com>
Cc:     LSM <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        LKM <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        SE Linux <selinux@...ho.nsa.gov>,
        John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
        Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
        Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
        "Schaufler, Casey" <casey.schaufler@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] procfs: add smack subdir to attrs

On 9/11/2018 4:45 PM, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 09:41:32AM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>> Back in 2007 I made what turned out to be a rather serious
>> mistake in the implementation of the Smack security module.
>> The SELinux module used an interface in /proc to manipulate
>> the security context on processes. Rather than use a similar
>> interface, I used the same interface. The AppArmor team did
>> likewise. Now /proc/.../attr/current will tell you the
>> security "context" of the process, but it will be different
>> depending on the security module you're using.
>>
>> This patch provides a subdirectory in /proc/.../attr for
>> Smack. Smack user space can use the "current" file in
>> this subdirectory and never have to worry about getting
>> SELinux attributes by mistake. Programs that use the
>> old interface will continue to work (or fail, as the case
>> may be) as before.
>>
> Did downstream distributions already merge the stacking patches on
> their own?

Ubuntu is leading the way with adopting the stacking patches.