linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] integrity: double check iint

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, 24 Feb 2022 09:32:29 -0800
From:   Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
To:     Petr Vorel <pvorel@...e.cz>, zohar@...ux.ibm.com
Cc:     dvyukov@...gle.com, ebiggers@...nel.org, jmorris@...ei.org,
        keescook@...omium.org, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, serge@...lyn.com,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] integrity: double check iint_cache was initialized

On 2/24/2022 6:20 AM, Petr Vorel wrote:
> Hi Mimi, Tetsuo, Kees, all,
>
> FYI this commit merged as 92063f3ca73a ("integrity: double check iint_cache was initialized")
> is the reason for openSUSE distro installer going back from lsm= to deprecated
> security= when filling default grub parameters because security=apparmor or
> security=selinux does not break boot when used with ima_policy=tcb, unlike
> using lsm.

OK, color me confused. Integrity isn't an LSM. It doesn't
call security_add_hooks().

> @Kees, @Mimi sure, people who use ima_policy=tcb will just remove lsm parameter
> or add "integrity" to it but I wonder whether there could be "integrity"
> automatic inclusion when using ima_policy=tcb. Although the point of lsm= (and
> CONFIG_LSM) is to have *ordered* list of enabled LSMs and it wouldn't be clear
> on which place.

Why would adding integrity to the lsm= make sense? It's not an LSM.

Sorry, but something is wrong here.

>
> Kind regards,
> Petr