[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <71e3652b-b222-0c3f-8b48-5980ddcaeb93@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2019 19:43:39 +0900
From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
To: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
Cc: Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
syzbot <syzbot+21016130b0580a9de3b5@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
tyhicks@...onical.com, John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
Serge Hallyn <serge@...lyn.com>,
syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com>,
Jeffrey Vander Stoep <jeffv@...gle.com>,
SELinux <selinux@...ho.nsa.gov>,
Russell Coker <russell@...er.com.au>,
Laurent Bigonville <bigon@...ian.org>,
syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: WARNING in apparmor_secid_to_secctx
On 2019/02/01 19:09, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> Thanks for the explanations.
>
> Here is the change that I've come up with:
> https://github.com/google/syzkaller/commit/aa53be276dc84aa8b3825b3416542447ff82b41a
You are not going to apply this updated config to upstream kernels now, are you?
Removing CONFIG_DEFAULT_SECURITY="apparmor" from configs used by upstream kernels
will cause failing to enable AppArmor (unless security=apparmor is specified).
I guess you can apply this updated config to linux-next kernels given that
you replace
CONFIG_LSM="yama,loadpin,safesetid,integrity,selinux,smack,tomoyo,apparmor"
with
CONFIG_LSM="yama,loadpin,safesetid,integrity,apparmor,selinux,smack,tomoyo"
so that AppArmor is enabled instead of SELinux.
>
> I've disabled CONFIG_SECURITY_TOMOYO_OMIT_USERSPACE_LOADER (it
> actually looked like omitting a user-space loader that I don't have is
> the right thing to do, but okay, it indeed does not with =y).
>
> For now I just enabled TOMOYO and SAFESETID.
> I see the problem with making both linux-next and upstream work. If we
> use a single config and lsm= cmdline argument, then on upstream all
> kernels will use the same module (they won't understand lsm=). But if
> we add security= then it will take precedence over lsm= on linux-next,
> so we won't get stacked modules.
Right.
>
> Let's go with (c) because I don't want an additional long-term maintenance cost.
OK.
> If I understand it correctly later we will need to replace:
> security=selinux
> security=smack
> security=apparmor
>
> with:
> lsm=yama,safesetid,integrity,selinux,tomoyo
> lsm=yama,safesetid,integrity,smack,tomoyo
> lsm=yama,safesetid,integrity,tomoyo,apparmor
Yes. Thank you.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists