[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a0320926ebfe732dabc4e53c3a35ede450c75474.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2023 08:13:27 -0500
From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...weicloud.com>,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, chuck.lever@...cle.com,
jlayton@...nel.org, dmitry.kasatkin@...il.com, paul@...l-moore.com,
jmorris@...ei.org, serge@...lyn.com, dhowells@...hat.com,
jarkko@...nel.org, stephen.smalley.work@...il.com,
eparis@...isplace.org, casey@...aufler-ca.com, brauner@...nel.org
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
selinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
stefanb@...ux.ibm.com, Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 23/28] security: Introduce LSM_ORDER_LAST
Hi Roberto,
On Fri, 2023-03-03 at 19:25 +0100, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> From: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>
>
> Introduce LSM_ORDER_LAST, to satisfy the requirement of LSMs willing to be
> the last, e.g. the 'integrity' LSM, without changing the kernel command
> line or configuration.
Please reframe this as a bug fix for 79f7865d844c ("LSM: Introduce
"lsm=" for boottime LSM selection") and upstream it first, with
'integrity' as the last LSM. The original bug fix commit 92063f3ca73a
("integrity: double check iint_cache was initialized") could then be
removed.
>
> As for LSM_ORDER_FIRST, LSMs with LSM_ORDER_LAST are always enabled and put
> at the end of the LSM list in no particular order.
^Similar to LSM_ORDER_FIRST ...
And remove "in no particular order".
>
> Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>
> ---
> include/linux/lsm_hooks.h | 1 +
> security/security.c | 12 +++++++++---
> 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h b/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
> index 21a8ce23108..05c4b831d99 100644
> --- a/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
> +++ b/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
> @@ -93,6 +93,7 @@ extern void security_add_hooks(struct security_hook_list *hooks, int count,
> enum lsm_order {
> LSM_ORDER_FIRST = -1, /* This is only for capabilities. */
> LSM_ORDER_MUTABLE = 0,
> + LSM_ORDER_LAST = 1,
> };
>
> struct lsm_info {
> diff --git a/security/security.c b/security/security.c
> index 322090a50cd..24f52ba3218 100644
> --- a/security/security.c
> +++ b/security/security.c
> @@ -284,9 +284,9 @@ static void __init ordered_lsm_parse(const char *order, const char *origin)
> bool found = false;
>
> for (lsm = __start_lsm_info; lsm < __end_lsm_info; lsm++) {
> - if (lsm->order == LSM_ORDER_MUTABLE &&
> - strcmp(lsm->name, name) == 0) {
> - append_ordered_lsm(lsm, origin);
> + if (strcmp(lsm->name, name) == 0) {
> + if (lsm->order == LSM_ORDER_MUTABLE)
> + append_ordered_lsm(lsm, origin);
> found = true;
> }
> }
> @@ -306,6 +306,12 @@ static void __init ordered_lsm_parse(const char *order, const char *origin)
> }
> }
>
> + /* LSM_ORDER_LAST is always last. */
> + for (lsm = __start_lsm_info; lsm < __end_lsm_info; lsm++) {
> + if (lsm->order == LSM_ORDER_LAST)
> + append_ordered_lsm(lsm, " last");
> + }
> +
> /* Disable all LSMs not in the ordered list. */
> for (lsm = __start_lsm_info; lsm < __end_lsm_info; lsm++) {
> if (exists_ordered_lsm(lsm))
--
thanks,
Mimi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists