From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from out01.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.231]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.90_1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1fMIkU-0005Nj-Qo for kexec@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 25 May 2018 19:51:40 +0000 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) References: <1527160176-29269-1-git-send-email-zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1527160176-29269-2-git-send-email-zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <87po1k2304.fsf@xmission.com> Date: Fri, 25 May 2018 14:51:00 -0500 In-Reply-To: (James Morris's message of "Sat, 26 May 2018 01:41:52 +1000 (AEST)") Message-ID: <871sdzy0nv.fsf@xmission.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/7] security: rename security_kernel_read_file() hook List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "kexec" Errors-To: kexec-bounces+dwmw2=infradead.org@lists.infradead.org To: James Morris Cc: Kees Cook , Ard Biesheuvel , Greg Kroah-Hartman , kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Howells , "Luis R . Rodriguez" , Andres Rodriguez , Casey Schaufler , linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, Mimi Zohar James Morris writes: > On Thu, 24 May 2018, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > >> Below is where I suggest you start on sorting out these security hooks. >> - Adding a security_kernel_arg to catch when you want to allow/deny the >> use of an argument to a syscall. What security_kernel_file_read and >> security_kernel_file_post_read have been abused for. > > NAK. This abstraction is too semantically weak. > > LSM hooks need to map to stronger semantics so we can reason about what > the hook and the policy is supposed to be mediating. I will take that as an extremely weak nack as all I did was expose the existing code and what the code is currently doing. I don't see how you can NAK what is already being merged and used. I will be happy to see a better proposal. The best I can see is to take each and every syscall that my patch is calling syscall_kernel_arg and make it it's own hook without an enumeration. I did not see any real duplication between the cases in my enumeration so I don't think that will be a problem. Maybe a bit of a challenge for loadpin but otherwise not. Thank you in this for understanding why I am having problems with the current hook. Eric _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec