linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH security-next v2 18/26] LSM: Build ordered list of ordered LSMs for init

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:   Thu, 20 Sep 2018 17:37:18 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
Cc:     James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        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>,
        "Schaufler, Casey" <casey.schaufler@...el.com>,
        LSM <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH security-next v2 18/26] LSM: Build ordered list of ordered
 LSMs for init

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 5:04 PM, Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com> wrote:
> On 9/20/2018 9:23 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
>> This constructs a list of ordered LSMs to initialize, using a hard-coded
>> list of only "integrity": minor LSMs continue to have direct hook calls,
>> and major LSMs continue to initialize separately.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
>
> Do you think that this mechanism will be sufficiently
> flexible to accommodate dynamically loaded security modules
> in the future? While I am not personally an advocate of
> dynamically loaded security modules I have been working to
> ensure that I haven't done anything that would actively
> interfere with someone who did.

I don't think it does, no. This is all just the boot time
initialization order, so a dynamic LSM would be unchanged: it would
initialize at module load time. :)

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security