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: <e3e60cd9-a390-af5c-7ccb-2b63694b0685@canonical.com>
Date:   Wed, 3 Oct 2018 06:15:54 -0700
From:   John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
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 10/02/2018 05:12 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> 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).
> 

Maybe? I'm not sure what the best option is with all the competing
requirements/desires. I need to think about it more and would like
to see what others think.