linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 07/18] LSM: Add minor LSM initialization loop

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]

Message-ID: <CAGXu5jK6wPLQRte4S3cnSgDZ7LoVugtTytK5iW5c_XYRq7HA5w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 15 Sep 2018 18:49:07 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Cc:     James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
        John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
        Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
        Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey.schaufler@...el.com>,
        linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/18] LSM: Add minor LSM initialization loop

On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 6:27 PM, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 3:11 AM Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>> Split initialization loop into two phases: "exclusive" LSMs and "minor"
>> LSMs.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
>> ---
>>  include/linux/lsm_hooks.h | 6 ++++++
>>  security/security.c       | 8 +++++---
>>  2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h b/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
>> index f8e618e2bdd2..ec3419b9b16f 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
>> @@ -2039,7 +2039,13 @@ extern char *lsm_names;
>>  extern void security_add_hooks(struct security_hook_list *hooks, int count,
>>                                 char *lsm);
>>
>> +enum lsm_type {
>> +       LSM_TYPE_EXCLUSIVE = 0,
>> +       LSM_TYPE_MINOR,
>> +};
>
> Is the intent of this explicit zero assignment that LSM_TYPE_EXCLUSIVE
> should be the default? If so, perhaps a comment "/* default */", or
> something like that, might be helpful.

You cut the patch quote off where I do exactly that:

>> +       enum lsm_type type;     /* Optional: default is LSM_TYPE_EXCLUSIVE */

:)

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security