linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH security-next v3 00/29] LSM: Explict LSM ordering

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: <eda428eb-f6e1-f048-a394-251953c388b6@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
Date:   Sat, 29 Sep 2018 19:48:23 +0900
From:   Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
Cc:     James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>,
        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 v3 00/29] LSM: Explict LSM ordering

On 2018/09/29 5:01, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 8:55 AM, Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com> wrote:
>> On 9/24/2018 5:18 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>> v3:
>>> - add CONFIG_LSM_ENABLE and refactor resulting logic
>>
>> Kees, you can add my
>>
>>         Reviewed-by:Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
>>
>> for this entire patch set. Thank you for taking this on, it's
>> a significant and important chunk of the LSM infrastructure
>> update.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> John, you'd looked at this a bit too -- do the results line up with
> your expectations?
> 
> Any thoughts from SELinux, TOMOYO, or IMA folks?

I'm OK with this approach. Thank you.



Just wondering what is "__lsm_name_##lsm" for...

+#define DEFINE_LSM(lsm)                                                        \
+       static const char __lsm_name_##lsm[] __initconst                \
+               __aligned(1) = #lsm;                                    \
+       static struct lsm_info __lsm_##lsm                              \
+               __used __section(.lsm_info.init)                        \
+               __aligned(sizeof(unsigned long))                        \
+               = {                                                     \
+                       .name = __lsm_name_##lsm,                       \
+
+#define END_LSM          }

We could do something like below so that funny END_LSM is not required?
I felt } like a typo error at the first glance. What we need is to
gather into one section with appropriate alignment, isn't it?

#define LSM_INFO                                                        \
	static struct lsm_info __lsm_                                   \
		__used __section(.lsm_info.init)                        \
		__aligned(sizeof(unsigned long))                        \

LSM_INFO = {
	.name = "tomoyo",
	.flags = LSM_FLAG_LEGACY_MAJOR | LSM_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE,
	.init = tomoyo_init,
};