netdev - Re: [PATCH v2] lockdown,selinux: avoid bogus SELinux lockdown permission checks

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAHC9VhSNWK11f+u8v+MN0VHC3_4u+30jom80rwaat8OsJKo5fQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 8 Jun 2021 22:40:15 -0400
From:   Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To:     Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@...hat.com>
Cc:     Linux Security Module list 
        <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Stephen Smalley <stephen.smalley.work@...il.com>,
        SElinux list <selinux@...r.kernel.org>,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, network dev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] lockdown,selinux: avoid bogus SELinux lockdown
 permission checks

On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 7:02 AM Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 7:46 PM Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com> wrote:

...

> > It sounds an awful lot like the lockdown hook is in the wrong spot.
> > It sounds like it would be a lot better to relocate the hook than
> > remove it.
>
> I don't see how you would solve this by moving the hook. Where do you
> want to relocate it?

Wherever it makes sense.  Based on your comments it really sounded
like the hook was in a bad spot and since your approach in a lot of
this had been to remove or disable hooks I wanted to make sure that
relocating the hook was something you had considered.  Thankfully it
sounds like you have considered moving the hook - that's good.

> The main obstacle is that the message containing
> the SA dump is sent to consumers via a simple netlink broadcast, which
> doesn't provide a facility to redact the SA secret on a per-consumer
> basis. I can't see any way to make the checks meaningful for SELinux
> without a major overhaul of the broadcast logic.

Fair enough.

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com