From: "Ahmed S. Darwish" <darwish.07@gmail.com>
To: James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>
Cc: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org>, Chris Wright <chrisw@sous-sol.org>,
Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>,
Eric Paris <eparis@parisplace.org>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@sw.ru>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
LSM-ML <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
Anrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v3 -mm] LSM: Add security= boot parameter
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 17:35:10 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080303153510.GA6963@ubuntu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Xine.LNX.4.64.0803031910170.6729@us.intercode.com.au>
Hi James,
On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 07:29:22PM +1100, James Morris wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Mar 2008, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote:
>
> > Add the security= boot parameter. This is done to avoid LSM
> > registration clashes in case of more than one bult-in module.
> >
> > User can choose a security module to enable at boot. If no
> > security= boot parameter is specified, only the first LSM
> > asking for registration will be loaded. An invalid security
> > module name will be treated as if no module has been chosen.
> >
> > LSM modules must check now if they are allowed to register
> > by calling security_module_enable(ops) first. Modify SELinux
> > and SMACK to do so.
>
> I think this can be simplified by folding the logic into
> register_security(), rather than having a two-stage LSM registration
> process.
>
> So, this function would now look like
>
> int register_security(ops, *status);
>
> and set *status to LSM_WAS_CHOSEN (or similar) if the module being
> registered was also chosen via the security= parameter. If there is no
> value for the parameter, the first module to register is automatically
> chosen, to preserve existing behavior.
>
> The calling code can then decide what to do, e.g. not panic if
> registration failed and the LSM was not chosen; panic on failure when it
> was chosen.
>
I liked to do it like that at first, but I faced two problems:
SElinux (As you already know ;)) does the security setup of the initial
task before calling register_security. Would it be safe to do this
setup after registeration ?
Same case occurs for Smack, it does some locking initializations and
setup initial task's security before registration.
Personally, I feel that it's nicer to let the LSM know if it's
OK to initialize itself before hitting _the point of no return_ (registration).
Anyway, I have no problem to implement it using *status if my
concerns are wrong.
> > +static atomic_t security_ops_enabled = ATOMIC_INIT(-1);
>
> I'd suggest getting rid of this atomic and using a spinlock to protect the
> global chosen_lsm string, which is always filled when an LSM registers.
>
> >
> > +/* Save user chosen LSM */
> > +static int __init choose_lsm(char *str)
> > +{
> > + strncpy(chosen_lsm, str, SECURITY_NAME_MAX);
> > + chosen_lsm[SECURITY_NAME_MAX] = NULL;
>
> You should never need to set the last byte to NULL -- it's initialized to
> that and by definition should never be overwritten.
>
> > +int security_module_enable(struct security_operations *ops)
> > +{
> > + if (!ops || !ops->name)
> > + return 0;
>
> Lack of ops->name during registration needs to be a BUG_ON.
>
You'll find above three points fixed the next send. Thank you.
Regards,
--
"Better to light a candle, than curse the darkness"
Ahmed S. Darwish
Homepage: http://darwish.07.googlepages.com
Blog: http://darwish-07.blogspot.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-03-03 15:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-03-01 19:07 [RFC PATCH -mm] LSM: Add lsm= boot parameter Ahmed S. Darwish
2008-03-01 20:28 ` Casey Schaufler
2008-03-01 21:11 ` Adrian Bunk
2008-03-01 21:29 ` Casey Schaufler
2008-03-01 23:27 ` [PATCH -v2 -mm] LSM: Add security= " Ahmed S. Darwish
2008-03-02 3:41 ` Casey Schaufler
2008-03-02 7:55 ` Ahmed S. Darwish
2008-03-02 7:49 ` Ahmed S. Darwish
2008-03-02 10:59 ` [PATCH -v3 " Ahmed S. Darwish
2008-03-02 18:37 ` Casey Schaufler
2008-03-03 8:29 ` James Morris
2008-03-03 15:35 ` Ahmed S. Darwish [this message]
2008-03-03 15:54 ` Stephen Smalley
2008-03-03 21:24 ` [PATCH -v4 " Ahmed S. Darwish
2008-03-03 22:16 ` James Morris
2008-03-04 3:04 ` [PATCH -v5 " Ahmed S. Darwish
2008-03-04 4:07 ` James Morris
2008-03-05 22:29 ` Andrew Morton
2008-03-05 22:56 ` Ahmed S. Darwish
2008-03-05 23:06 ` Ahmed S. Darwish
2008-03-05 22:56 ` James Morris
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20080303153510.GA6963@ubuntu \
--to=darwish.07@gmail.com \
--cc=adobriyan@sw.ru \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bunk@kernel.org \
--cc=casey@schaufler-ca.com \
--cc=chrisw@sous-sol.org \
--cc=eparis@parisplace.org \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sds@tycho.nsa.gov \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.