linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v39 01/42] integrity: disassociate ima_filter_rule from security_audit

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 19:06:34 -0400
From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
        Paul Moore
 <paul@...l-moore.com>
Cc: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...weicloud.com>,
        Roberto Sassu
 <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, jmorris@...ei.org,
        serge@...lyn.com, keescook@...omium.org, john.johansen@...onical.com,
        penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp, stephen.smalley.work@...il.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mic@...ikod.net,
        linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v39 01/42] integrity: disassociate ima_filter_rule from
 security_audit_rule

On Mon, 2024-06-24 at 15:19 -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> On 6/24/2024 3:03 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 9:57 AM Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2024-06-24 at 10:45 +0200, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> > > > My only comment would be that I would not call the new functions with
> > > > the ima_ prefix, being those in security.c, which is LSM agnostic, but
> > > > I would rather use a name that more resembles the differences, if any.
> > > Commit 4af4662fa4a9 ("integrity: IMA policy") originally referred to these hooks
> > > as security_filter_rule_XXXX, but commit b8867eedcf76 ("ima: Rename internal
> > > filter rule functions") renamed the function to ima_filter_rule_XXX) to avoid
> > > security namespace polution.
> > > 
> > > If these were regular security hooks, the hooks would be named:
> > > filter_rule_init, filter_rule_free, filter_rule_match with the matching
> > > "security" prefix functions. Audit and IMA would then register the hooks.
> > > 
> > > I agree these functions should probably be renamed again, probably to
> > > security_ima_filter_rule_XXXX.
> > It's funny, my mind saw that the patch was removing those preprocessor
> > macros and was so happy it must have shut off, because we already have
> > security_XXX functions for these :)
> > 
> > See security_audit_rule_init(), security_audit_rule_free(), and
> > security_audit_rule_match().
> > 
> > Casey, do you want to respin this patch to use the existing LSM
> > functions?
> 
> If you want to use shared functions they shouldn't be security_audit_blah().
> I like Mimi's suggestion. Rename security_audit_filter_rule_init() to
> security_filter_rule_init() and use that in both places.

The existing name is security_audit_rule_init().  Replacing '_audit_' with
'_filter_' would definitely resolve the naming issue.  Each of the LSMs would
need to be converted as well (e.g. smack_audit_rule_init,
selinux_audit_rule_init, aa_audit_rule_init).

> 
> >   It looks like you should have Mimi's and Roberto's support
> > in this.  Please submit this as a standalone patch as it really is a
> > IMA/LSM cleanup.
> > 
> > Thanks all.
> >