Re: [RFC PATCH v3 00/12] security: x86/sgx: SGX vs. LSM, round 3

[Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>]

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 09:38:19AM -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> On 6/17/19 6:24 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> >My original plan was for my next RFC to be an implementation of Andy's
> >proposed "dynamic tracking" model.  I actually finished the tracking
> >portion, but was completely flummoxed by the auditing[1].  Since Cedric's
> >RFC is essentially a variation of the dynamic tracking model, it too has
> >the same auditing complexities.  End result, I ended back at the "make
> >userspace state its intentions" approach.
> >
> >Except for patch 12 (see below), the SGX changes have been fully tested,
> >including updating the kernel's selftest as well as my own fork of (an old
> >version of) Intel's SDK to use the new UAPI.  The LSM changes have been
> >smoke tested, but I haven't actually configured AppArmor or SELinux to
> >verify the permissions work as intended.
> 
> Was dropping linux-security-module and selinux lists intentional for this
> RFC? Not recommended.

Yes, my thought was to keep the noise to the sgx list until we at least
agree on a direction for the SGX UAPI.  I am fully expecting that whatever
LSM and SELinux patches we end up with will go through a lot more scrutiny
when Jarkko sends them with his SGX series.

Anyways, would you like me to resend the series to Cc the aforementioned
lists?

> Is the entire series aside from patch 12 available in a public tree
> somewhere?

I pushed tag 'sgx-lsm-v3' to https://github.com/sean-jc/linux.git.

> Ultimately we'll want additions to the selinux-testsuite that exercise each
> of the new permissions, both a permission denied scenario and a permission
> allowed scenario.