linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH security-next v5 00/30] LSM: Explict ordering

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, 11 Oct 2018 23:53:50 +0000
From:   Jordan Glover <Golden_Miller83@...tonmail.ch>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
        John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>,
        Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
        Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        LSM <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        "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 v5 00/30] LSM: Explict ordering

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Friday, October 12, 2018 1:09 AM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:

> We've had things sort of like this proposed, but if you can convince
> James and others, I'm all for it. I think the standing objection from
> James and John about this is that the results of booting with
> "lsm=something" ends up depending on CONFIG_LSM= for that distro. So
> you end up with different behaviors instead of a consistent behavior
> across all distros.
>

Ok, I'll try :)

The final lsm string contains two parts: Kconfig "CONFIG_LSM=" and boot
param "lsm=". Changing even only one of those parts also changes the
final string.

In case of distros, it's the "CONFIG_LSM=" which changes. Even when "lsm="
stays constant, the behavior will be different, example:

Distro A has: CONFIG_LSM=loadpin,integrity,selinux
Distro B has CONFIG_LSM=yama,loadpin,integrity,selinux

User on distro A wants to enable apparmor with:

lsm=loadpin,integrity,apparmor

which they do and add it to howto on wiki.

User on distro B want to enable apparmor, they found info on some wiki and do:

lsm=loadpin,integrity,apparmor

Puff, yama got disabled!

Above example shows why I think "consistent behavior across all distros"
argument for current approach is flawed -  because distros aren't
consistent. In my proposition the user will just use "lsm=apparmor" and
it will consistently enable apparmor on all distros which is what they
really wanted, but all pre-existing differences across distros will
remain unchanged.

The current approach requires that everyone who dares to touch "lsm="
knows about existence of all lsm, their enabled/disabled status on
target distro and their order. I doubt there are many people other
than recipients of this mail who fit for the above.

I it's better to assume that average user has rather vague knowledge
about lsm and don't delve deep into Kconfig's of their chosen distro.
If they want to use "lsm=" their goal is to disable/enable on or more
things. My proposition will work better for those. More advanced users
still will may pass any "lsm=" string as they like, this having full
control.

Jordan