linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v17 05/10] fs,landlock: Support filesystem access-control

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, 14 May 2020 20:49:31 +0200
From:   Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>
To:     James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
Cc:     Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
        Mickaël Salaün <mickael.salaun@....gouv.fr>,
        "Serge E . Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Vincent Dagonneau <vincent.dagonneau@....gouv.fr>,
        kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v17 05/10] fs,landlock: Support filesystem access-control


On 14/05/2020 19:31, James Morris wrote:
> On Thu, 14 May 2020, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> 
>>> This needs to be converted to the LSM API via superblock blob stacking.
>>>
>>> See Casey's old patch: 
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-security-module/20190829232935.7099-2-casey@schaufler-ca.com/
>>
>> s_landlock_inode_refs is quite similar to s_fsnotify_inode_refs, but I
>> can do it once the superblock security blob patch is upstream. Is it a
>> blocker for now? What is the current status of lbs_superblock?
> 
> Yes it is a blocker. Landlock should not be adding its own functions in 
> core code, it should be using the LSM API (and extending that as needed).

OK, I'll use that in the next series.

> 
>> Anyway, we also need to have a call to landlock_release_inodes() in
>> generic_shutdown_super(), which does not fit the LSM framework, and I
>> think it is not an issue. Landlock handling of inodes is quite similar
>> to fsnotify.
> 
> fsnotify is not an LSM.

Yes, so I'll need to add a new LSM hook for this (release) call, right?