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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2020 22:06:40 +0200 From: Lorenzo Fontana <fontanalorenz@...il.com> To: KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org> Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Security Module list <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>, Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>, Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>, John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] bpf: lsm: Disable or enable BPF LSM at boot time On Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 08:59:13PM +0200, KP Singh wrote: > On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 8:51 PM Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> wrote: > > > > On 7/6/20 6:57 PM, Lorenzo Fontana wrote: > > > This option adds a kernel parameter 'bpf_lsm', > > > which allows the BPF LSM to be disabled at boot. > > > The purpose of this option is to allow a single kernel > > > image to be distributed with the BPF LSM built in, > > > but not necessarily enabled. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Fontana <fontanalorenz@...il.com> > > > > Well, this explains what the patch is doing but not *why* you need it exactly. > > Please explain your concrete use-case for this patch. > > Also, this patch is not really needed as it can already be done with the current > kernel parameters. > > LSMs can be enabled on the command line > with the lsm= parameter. So you can just pass lsm="selinux,capabilities" etc > and not pass "bpf" and it will disable the BPF_LSM. > > - KP > > > > > Thanks, > > Daniel Hi, Thanks Daniel and KP for looking into this, I really appreciate it! The *why* I need it is because I need to ship the kernel with BPF LSM disabled at boot time. The use case is exactly the same as the one described by KP, however for a personal preference I prefer to pass specifically bpf_lsm=1 or bpf_lsm=0 - It's easier to change programmatically in my scripts with a simple sprintf("bpf_lsm=%d", value). I do the same with "selinux=1" and "selinux=0" in my systems. >From what I can see by reading the code and testing, the two ways bot act on 'lsm_info.enabled' defined in 'lsm_hooks.h'. So it's not just a personal preference, I just want the same set of options available to me as I do with selinux. Thanks a lot, Lore
Powered by blists - more mailing lists