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]

Date:   Thu, 4 Oct 2018 04:17:19 +1000 (AEST)
From:   James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
To:     John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>
cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.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, 2 Oct 2018, John Johansen wrote:

> To me a list like
>   lsm.enable=X,Y,Z

What about even simpler:

lsm=selinux,!apparmor,yama

> 
> is best as a single explicit enable list, and it would be best to avoid
> lsm.disable as it just introduces confusion.
> 
> I do think per-LSM bootparams looses the advantages of centralization,
> and still requires the user to know some Kconfig info but it also gets
> rid of the lsm.disable confusion.
> 
> With ordering separated out from being enabled there is a certain
> cleanness to it. And perhaps most users are looking to enable/disable
> a single lsm, instead of specifying exactly what security they want
> on their system.
> 
> If we were to go this route I would rather drop the lsm. prefix
> 
> 
> > I think the current proposal (in the other thread) is likely the
> > sanest approach:
> > 
> > - Drop CONFIG_SECURITY_SELINUX_BOOTPARAM_VALUE
> > - Drop CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR_BOOTPARAM_VALUE
> > - All enabled LSMs are listed at build-time in CONFIG_LSM_ENABLE
> 
> Hrrmmm isn't this a Kconfig selectable list, with each built-in LSM
> available to be enabled by default at boot.
> 
> > - Boot time enabling for selinux= and apparmor= remain
> > - lsm.enable= is explicit: overrides above and omissions are disabled
> wfm
> 
> > - maybe include lsm.disable= to disable anything
> 

-- 
James Morris
<jmorris@...ei.org>