[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAEjxPJ4nD-3cNQHp8wjdL=_k3opjyU+zc9xCPZkOjkTxDN6g9A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 16:31:59 -0400
From: Stephen Smalley <stephen.smalley.work@...il.com>
To: Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@...ux.microsoft.com>
Cc: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>,
Stephen Smalley <stephen.smalley@...il.com>,
Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] LSM: Define SELinux function to measure security state
On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 12:45 PM Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
<nramas@...ux.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/15/20 4:57 AM, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> > I think I mentioned this on a previous version of these patches, but I
> > would recommend including more than just the enabled and enforcing
> > states in your measurement. Other low-hanging fruit would be the
> > other selinux_state booleans (checkreqprot, initialized,
> > policycap[0..__POLICYDB_CAPABILITY_MAX]). Going a bit further one
> > could take a hash of the loaded policy by using security_read_policy()
> > and then computing a hash using whatever hash ima prefers over the
> > returned data,len pair. You likely also need to think about how to
> > allow future extensibility of the state in a backward-compatible
> > manner, so that future additions do not immediately break systems
> > relying on older measurements.
> >
>
> Sure - I will address this one in the next update.
Please add selinux list to the cc for future versions too.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists