linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] SELinux: Measure state and hash of policy using IMA

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, 26 Aug 2020 08:51:26 -0400
From:   Stephen Smalley <stephen.smalley.work@...il.com>
To:     Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@...ux.microsoft.com>
Cc:     Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
        Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@...hat.com>,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
        Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@...ux.microsoft.com>,
        tusharsu@...ux.microsoft.com, Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
        James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
        SElinux list <selinux@...r.kernel.org>,
        LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] SELinux: Measure state and hash of policy using IMA

On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 4:49 PM Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
<nramas@...ux.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> On 8/24/20 3:18 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> >>>>> Is Ondrej's re-try approach I need to use to workaround policy reload issue?
> >>>>
> >>>> No, I think perhaps we should move the mutex to selinux_state instead
> >>>> of selinux_fs_info.  selinux_fs_info has a pointer to selinux_state so
> >>>> it can then use it indirectly.  Note that your patches are going to
> >>>> conflict with other ongoing work in the selinux next branch that is
> >>>> refactoring policy load and converting the policy rwlock to RCU.
> >>>
> >>> Yeah, and I'm experimenting with a patch on top of Stephen's RCU work
> >>> that would allow you to do this in a straightforward way without even
> >>> messing with the fsi->mutex. My patch may or may not be eventually
> >>> committed, but either way I'd recommend holding off on this for a
> >>> while until the dust settles around the RCU conversion.
> >>
> >> I can make the SELinux\IMA changes in "selinux next branch" taking
> >> dependencies on Stephen's patches + relevant IMA patches.
> >
> > I know it can be frustrating to hear what I'm about to say, but the
> > best option is probably just to wait a little to let things settle in
> > the SELinux -next branch.  There is a lot of stuff going on right now
> > with patches flooding in (at least "flooding" from a SELinux kernel
> > development perspective) and we/I've haven't gotten through all of
> > them yet.
> >
>
> Could you please let me know when the current set of changes in SELinux
> next branch would be completed and be ready to take new changes?
>
> I mean, roughly - would it be a month from now or you expect that to
> take longer?

I can't speak for Paul but I would expect it to be sooner rather than
later. Ondrej has some follow ups on top of my policy rcu conversion
but then it should be good to go.