linux-kernel - Re: Linux 5.1-rc2

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, 28 Mar 2019 07:05:14 +0900
From:   Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
Subject: Re: Linux 5.1-rc2

On 2019/03/28 6:43, Kees Cook wrote:
>>> I don't see problems for an exclusive LSM user (AA, SELinux, Smack)
>>> also initializing TOMOYO, though. It should be a no-op. Is there some
>>> situation where this is not true?
>>
>> There should be no problem except some TOMOYO messages are printed.
> 
> Okay, so I should send my latest version of the patch to James? Or do
> you explicitly want TOMOYO removed from all the CONFIG_LSM default
> lines except when selected by CONFIG_DEFAULT_SECURITY_TOMOYO? (I worry
> the latter will lead to less testing of the stacking.)
> 

My approach is "opt-in" while your approach is "opt-out". And the problem
here is that people might fail to change CONFIG_LSM from the default value
to what they need. (And Jakub did not change CONFIG_LSM to reflect
CONFIG_DEFAULT_SECURITY_APPARMOR from the old config.) Thus, I suggest
"opt-in" approach; which includes up to only one legacy major LSM and allows
people to change the default value to include multiple legacy major LSMs.

You can propose your latest version. If SELinux/Smack/AppArmor people
prefer "opt-out" approach, I'm fine with "opt-out" approach.