Re: LSM stacking and the network access controls

[Paul Moore <pmoore@redhat.com>]

On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 08:51:50 AM Casey Schaufler wrote:
> On 2/27/2013 8:43 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 03:12:31 PM Casey Schaufler wrote:
> >> On 2/26/2013 1:21 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> >>> On Monday, February 25, 2013 03:06:14 PM Casey Schaufler wrote:
> >>>> The set of LSMs, the order they are invoked, which LSM
> >>>> uses /proc/.../attr/current and which LSM uses Netlabel,
> >>>> XFRM and secmark are all determined by Kconfig. You can
> >>>> specify a limited set of LSMs using security= at boot,
> >>>> but not the networking configuration.
> >>> 
> >>> That's unfortunate.  I'm _really_ not in favor of that, I would much
> >>> rather see the non-shared LSM functionality assigned at the same time as
> >>> the stacking order.  I'm not sure I'd NACK the current approach, or
> >>> even\
> >>> if anyone would care that I did, but that is how I'm currently leaning
> >>> with this split (build vs runtime) selection.
> >> 
> >> I'm not against that approach. How would you see it working?
> >> 
> >> The distro compiles in all the LSMs.
> >> They specify that SELinux gets xfrm and secmark.
> >> They specify the Smack gets Netlabel.
> >> They tell (the new and improved) AppArmor to eschew networking.
> >> They specify a boot order of "selinux,smack,apparmor,yama"
> >> (They left off tomoyo for tax purposes).
> >> 
> >> On the boot line, the user types "security=apparmor".
> >> 
> >> What should happen?
> > 
> > Okay, I misunderstood what was specified at boot time; I thought the
> > stacking order could be defined at boot but based on your example I'm
> > guessing the stacking order is defined at compile time and you can only
> > enable/disable LSMs at boot?
> 
> Well, no. It looks as if I gave a poor example.
> 
> 	"security=apparmor,tomoyo,selinux"
> 
> is legitimate and indicates that AppArmor goes first,
> then TOMOYO, then SELinux. No LSM gets NetLabel because
> that was allocated to Smack. SELinux gets XFRM and secmark.

All the more reason to either adopt a mechanism that allows you to assign the 
non-shareable resources on the command line along with the stacking 
configuration or simply adopt a first-come-first-serve policy.

-- 
paul moore
security and virtualization @ redhat


--
This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.