linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 00/19] LSM: Module stacking for SARA and Landlock

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, 2 Oct 2018 03:58:52 +1000 (AEST)
From:   James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
To:     Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
cc:     Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        LSM <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        SE Linux <selinux@...ho.nsa.gov>,
        LKLM <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>,
        Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
        Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
        "linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
        Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>,
        Salvatore Mesoraca <s.mesoraca16@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/19] LSM: Module stacking for SARA and Landlock

On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Casey Schaufler wrote:

> >   How do you plan to handle LKM-based LSMs?
> 
> My position all along has been that I don't plan to handle LKM
> based LSMs, but that I won't do anything to prevent someone else
> from adding them later. I believe that I've done that. Several
> designs, including a separate list for dynamically loaded modules
> have been proposed. I think some of those would work.

Dynamically loadable LSMs are a bad idea, per several previous 
discussions. As a general design concept, kernel security mechanisms 
should be invoked during boot, so we can reason about the overall state of 
the system at a given point.

In any case, we do not need to take dynamic LSMs into account at this 
stage. We don't build infrastructure for non-existent features.