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]

Date:   Sat, 29 Sep 2018 11:19:52 -0700
From:   John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>
To:     Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
Cc:     James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, 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 09/29/2018 03:48 AM, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> 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?
> 

well and Kees was trying to automagically set the name. This threw
me off too at first and I am still trying to figure out if I would
prefer something simpler, and more standard like below.

> #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,
> };
>