linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH security-next v4 23/32] selinux: Remove boot parameter

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: <CAGXu5jJ-2V5ch-Qer_O0mg1J5-9SUmyJXsGYicZEMyg5KkqHaw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 2 Oct 2018 17:12:58 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>
Cc:     James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        Jordan Glover <Golden_Miller83@...tonmail.ch>,
        Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
        Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
        "Schaufler, Casey" <casey.schaufler@...el.com>,
        linux-security-module <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 23/32] selinux: Remove boot parameter

On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 5:05 PM, John Johansen
<john.johansen@...onical.com> wrote:
> On 10/02/2018 04:54 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>> That's not how I have it currently. It's a comma-separated a string,
>> including the reserved name "all". The default would just be
>> "CONFIG_LSM_ENABLE=all". Casey and I wanted this to have a way to
>> capture new LSMs by default at build-time.
>>
>
> I understand where you are coming from, but speaking with my distro
> hat on, that is not going to work. As a distro Ubuntu very much wants
> to be able to offer all the LSMs built in to the kernel so the user
> can select them. But very much wants to be able to specify a default
> supported subset that is enabled at boot.
>
> I expect RH and Suse will feel similarily. Speaking for Ubuntu if this
> isn't available as part of lsm stacking it will get distro patched in.

Right. Ubuntu would do something like:

CONFIG_LSM_ENABLE=yama,apparmor,integrity

And that's why I wanted non-explicit lsm.enable, so that an end user
could just do:

lsm.enable=loadpin

to add loadpin.

Perhaps we could have both? "lsm.enable=+loadpin" (add loadpin to
build default list) vs "lsm.enable=loadpin" (override build default
list with ONLY loadpin).

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security