linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 02/23] ima: Do not print policy rule with inactive LSM labels

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]

Message-ID: <4fe1b4fbd47f9ee7ad92eaac7da1db642b126344.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Thu, 27 Jan 2022 09:12:49 -0500
From:   Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
        Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, serge@...lyn.com,
        christian.brauner@...ntu.com, containers@...ts.linux.dev,
        dmitry.kasatkin@...il.com, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
        krzysztof.struczynski@...wei.com, roberto.sassu@...wei.com,
        mpeters@...hat.com, lhinds@...hat.com, lsturman@...hat.com,
        puiterwi@...hat.com, jejb@...ux.ibm.com, jamjoom@...ibm.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, paul@...l-moore.com, rgb@...hat.com,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, jmorris@...ei.org,
        Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 02/23] ima: Do not print policy rule with inactive
 LSM labels

Hi Christian,

On Wed, 2022-01-26 at 09:38 +0100, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 05:46:24PM -0500, Stefan Berger wrote:
> > From: Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.ibm.com>
> > 
> > Before printing a policy rule scan for inactive LSM labels in the policy
> > rule. Inactive LSM labels are identified by args_p != NULL and
> > rule == NULL.
> > 
> > Fixes: b16942455193 ("ima: use the lsm policy update notifier")

Stefan, please refer to commit 483ec26eed42 ("ima: ima/lsm policy rule
loading logic bug fixes") instead.

> 
> That commit message of the referenced patch reads:
> 
> "Don't do lazy policy updates while running the rule matching, run the
> updates as they happen."
> 
> and given that we had a lengthy discussion how to update the rules I'd
> really would have liked an explanation why the update needs to run
> immediately. Not doing it lazily is the whole reason we have this
> notifier infra. Why can't this be done lazily?

The subject of the original thread leading up to registering a block
notifier is titled
"Subject: sleep in selinux_audit_rule_init".  The message id of the
original thread is 
CAHC9VhS=GsEVUmxtiV64o8G6i2nJpkzxzpyTADgN-vhV8pzZbg@...l.gmail.com.

This patch addresses a bug and could be upstreamed independently the
IMA namespacing patch set.  Should we defer including a summary from
the lazy update to block notifier discussion to "[PATCH v9 11/23] ima:
Move ima_lsm_policy_notifier into ima_namespace"?

thanks,

Mimi