linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v38 06/39] LSM: lsm_self_attr syscall for LSM self attributes

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, 20 Oct 2022 09:13:33 -0700
From:   Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
To:     Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
Cc:     casey.schaufler@...el.com, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-audit@...hat.com, jmorris@...ei.org, selinux@...r.kernel.org,
        keescook@...omium.org, john.johansen@...onical.com,
        penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp, stephen.smalley.work@...il.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, casey@...aufler-ca.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v38 06/39] LSM: lsm_self_attr syscall for LSM self
 attributes

On 10/20/2022 8:44 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 3:57 PM Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com> wrote:
>> Create a system call lsm_self_attr() to provide the security
>> module maintained attributes of the current process. Historically
>> these attributes have been exposed to user space via entries in
>> procfs under /proc/self/attr.
> Hi Casey,
>
> I had hoped to get to review these patches earlier this week, I know
> you are very anxious to see something happen here, but unfortunately
> that didn't work out and I'm now in a position of limited network
> access and time for a bit.  I will do my best to at least comment on
> the new syscall related additions, but thankfully you've already
> started to get some good comments from others so I'm hopeful that will
> help you keep moving forward.

Thanks. I just got back to work myself. Hopefully the comments will prove
useful. I'm just getting to them.

> One comment I did want to make, and it's important: please separate
> the LSM syscall patches from the LSM stacking patches.  While the
> stacking patches will obviously be dependent on the syscall patches,
> the syscall patches should not be dependent on stacking.  However, the
> LSM syscall patches must be designed from the start to support
> multiple, simultaneous LSMs.

OK. I will refactor into two patch sets. The first will be the syscalls
for getting the LSM attributes and the second will be the stacking changes.
The prctl() I proposed to set the "display" LSM will be in the second, as
it makes no sense to have without anything to change. I have not to date
included the SO_PEERCONTEXT that would be required for complete stacking.
Would you like to see that included in the syscall patches?


> Thanks.

Thank you.