linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] security: add symbol namespace for reading file data

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:   Wed, 13 May 2020 16:16:22 +0000
From:   Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
Cc:     viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        rafael@...nel.org, jeyu@...nel.org, jmorris@...ei.org,
        keescook@...omium.org, paul@...l-moore.com,
        stephen.smalley.work@...il.com, eparis@...isplace.org,
        nayna@...ux.ibm.com, zohar@...ux.ibm.com,
        scott.branden@...adcom.com, dan.carpenter@...cle.com,
        skhan@...uxfoundation.org, geert@...ux-m68k.org,
        tglx@...utronix.de, bauerman@...ux.ibm.com, dhowells@...hat.com,
        linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        kexec@...ts.infradead.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        selinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] security: add symbol namespace for reading file data

On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 10:40:31AM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org> writes:
> 
> > Certain symbols are not meant to be used by everybody, the security
> > helpers for reading files directly is one such case. Use a symbol
> > namespace for them.
> >
> > This will prevent abuse of use of these symbols in places they were
> > not inteded to be used, and provides an easy way to audit where these
> > types of operations happen as a whole.
> 
> Why not just remove the ability for the firmware loader to be a module?
> 
> Is there some important use case that requires the firmware loader
> to be a module?
> 
> We already compile the code in by default.  So it is probably just
> easier to remove the modular support all together.  Which would allow
> the export of the security hooks to be removed as well.

Yeah, that's a better solution. The only constaint I am aware of is
we *cannot* change the name of the module from firmware_class since the
old fallback sysfs loader depends on the module name. So, so long as we
take care with that on built-in and document this very well, I think
we should be good.

I checked the commit logs and this was tristate since the code was added
upstream, so I cannot see any good reason it was enabled as modular.

Speaking with a *backports experience* hat on, we did have a use case
to use a module for it in case a new feature was added upstream which
was not present on older kernels. However I think that using a separate
symbol prefix would help with that.

Would any Android stakeholders / small / embedded folks whave any issue
with this?

  Luis