linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v12 0/3] Add trusted_for(2) (was O

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, 07 Oct 2021 14:37:17 -0400
From:   Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     bauen1 <j2468h@...glemail.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        arnd@...db.de, casey@...aufler-ca.com,
        christian.brauner@...ntu.com, christian@...hon.org, corbet@....net,
        cyphar@...har.com, deven.desai@...ux.microsoft.com,
        dvyukov@...gle.com, ebiggers@...nel.org, ericchiang@...gle.com,
        fweimer@...hat.com, geert@...ux-m68k.org, jack@...e.cz,
        jannh@...gle.com, jmorris@...ei.org,
        kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, luto@...nel.org,
        madvenka@...ux.microsoft.com, mjg59@...gle.com,
        mszeredi@...hat.com, mtk.manpages@...il.com,
        nramas@...ux.microsoft.com, philippe.trebuchet@....gouv.fr,
        scottsh@...rosoft.com, sean.j.christopherson@...el.com,
        sgrubb@...hat.com, shuah@...nel.org, steve.dower@...hon.org,
        thibaut.sautereau@...p-os.org, vincent.strubel@....gouv.fr,
        viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, willy@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 0/3] Add trusted_for(2) (was O_MAYEXEC)

On Thu, 2021-10-07 at 20:29 +0200, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> On 07/10/2021 00:03, Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 07:15:42PM +0200, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> >> There was no new reviews, probably because the FS maintainers were busy,
> >> and I was focused on Landlock (which is now in -next), but I plan to
> >> send a new patch series for trusted_for(2) soon.
> > 
> > Hi!
> > 
> > Did this ever happen? It looks like it's in good shape, and I think it's
> > a nice building block for userspace to have. Are you able to rebase and
> > re-send this?
> 
> I just sent it:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20211007182321.872075-1-mic@digikod.net/
> 
> Some Signed-off-by would be appreciated. :)
> 

>From the cover letter, 

It is important to note that this can only enable to extend access
control managed by the kernel.  Hence it enables current access control
mechanism to be extended and become a superset of what they can
currently control.  Indeed, the security policy could also be delegated
to an LSM, either a MAC system or an integrity system.  For instance,
this is required to close a major IMA measurement/appraisal interpreter
integrity gap by bringing the ability to check the use of scripts [1].
Other uses are expected, such as for magic-links [2], SGX integration
[3], bpffs [4].

>From a quick review of the code, I don't see a new security hook being
defined to cover these use cases.

thanks,

Mimi

> > 
> > I've tended to aim these things at akpm if Al gets busy. (And since
> > you've had past review from Al, that should be hopefully sufficient.)
> > 
> > Thanks for chasing this!
> > 
> > -Kees
> >