linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH security-next v3 12/29] LSM: Provide separate ordered initialization

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: <CAGXu5jK+WT-1QkapORpzBJDCeZSAXUf_tN0mwRU+cWy=phRdgA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 1 Oct 2018 15:03:39 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>
Cc:     James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.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 v3 12/29] LSM: Provide separate ordered initialization

On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 2:17 PM, John Johansen
<john.johansen@...onical.com> wrote:
> On 09/24/2018 05:18 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>> This provides a place for ordered LSMs to be initialized, separate from
>> the "major" LSMs. This is mainly a copy/paste from major_lsm_init() to
>> ordered_lsm_init(), but it will change drastically in later patches.
>>
>> What is not obvious in the patch is that this change moves the integrity
>> LSM from major_lsm_init() into ordered_lsm_init(), since it is not marked
>> with the LSM_FLAG_LEGACY_MAJOR. As it is the only LSM in the "ordered"
>> list, there is no reordering yet created.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
>
> I know its already being done, but I don't like splitting the init
> order

Can you describe what you mean here? Do you mean having two init
functions? This is only done temporarily while the other pieces are
reorganized. The later patches reintegrate this. (Before this series,
we effectively had three implicit init paths: minor, major, and
integrity, so even this patch "alone" is an improvement IMO.)

Thanks for the reviews!

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security