linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH security-next v4 10/32] LSM: Don't ignore initialization failures

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 14:38:05 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
Cc:     Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
        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 v4 10/32] LSM: Don't ignore initialization failures

On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 2:20 PM, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Oct 2018, Kees Cook wrote:
>
>> LSM initialization failures have traditionally been ignored. We should
>> at least WARN when something goes wrong.
>
> I guess we could have a boot param which specifies what to do if any LSM
> fails to init, as I think some folks will want to stop execution at that
> point.
>
> Thoughts?

I'm not opposed, but I won't author it because Linus will yell at me
about introducing a "machine killing" option.

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security