From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Cyrus-Session-Id: sloti33d1t02-1703727-1528121052-2-15184898297807857944 X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 3.0 X-Spam-known-sender: no ("Email failed DMARC policy for domain") X-Spam-charsets: plain='UTF-8' X-IgnoreVacation: yes ("Email failed DMARC policy for domain") X-Resolved-to: linux@kroah.com X-Delivered-to: linux@kroah.com X-Mail-from: linux-security-module-owner@vger.kernel.org ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; d=messagingengine.com; s=fm2; t= 1528121052; b=jeBueFSl3eFNOtRpviIUIDlVIus69a9XwL9EdVB9wt2u9ftOOR uMF7RB8EczftgCYNAGrdgF32EE0H4UmgaUyYFAuBW6UwWJE3VNM8IlNp88+XMl8H AHWz/3MagCdXUuDpMchFHGn67DLvsBfuwsvI+z6YksXMjYPRm/JYrEevpzgRTtbs UlhazL0TqULYC/ClTZ8biNbR3+OmXJcgnHlgJ5gOEM98aWr9ILpyLKPI+GpPWnze EUdddb9jKmvSBkLKqqmJThsRIKnIpitEJUTKVZgux0PDFXk1+cN4SGaxS84PiEeT DHY+xMR6u+fY3RdEb+7YrBbwd9KcZXgoJSgA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to :references:content-type:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding :message-id:sender:list-id; s=fm2; t=1528121052; bh=euMQP95/rcac UafrdNqQ5K4IY4BiMzzXAbVpMLuSzJs=; b=JhgRVttUKkhCjowdk73SOOlBWK1Q LZGIbiJnbTwi+ToKQ/EpbUfRwJC8Aojdmy4UgRazwAxSjX009kcon6YRPCeMXFYv uAv/pRP2X915Q3oDiT6Qnv1c9zC8bCRfnpRH/hiBj5flyahYQs3aR5CUCTPxcGij W6XKIO4ICQaNf/qT4ObIlak2SMY4CE7HPq60632fPalze+TCbiEg9uC7qp739Ad5 VlUB2wj+VUzbZeo1tS3kDff9MNSiM8MN+Gx35QuSpW1C8XvSIe9hTISh7IAfBHia Yd1QbIeGojjmcrhIjwySPWoUhAKcIt1NNq+mh4wAGC30gLQjxMY4KHUwWw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx1.messagingengine.com; arc=none (no signatures found); dkim=none (no signatures found); dmarc=fail (p=none,has-list-id=yes,d=none) header.from=linux.vnet.ibm.com; iprev=pass policy.iprev=209.132.180.67 (vger.kernel.org); spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-security-module-owner@vger.kernel.org smtp.helo=vger.kernel.org; x-aligned-from=fail; x-cm=none score=0; x-ptr=pass smtp.helo=vger.kernel.org policy.ptr=vger.kernel.org; x-return-mx=pass smtp.domain=vger.kernel.org smtp.result=pass smtp_org.domain=kernel.org smtp_org.result=pass smtp_is_org_domain=no header.domain=linux.vnet.ibm.com header.result=pass header_org.domain=ibm.com header_org.result=pass header_is_org_domain=no; x-vs=clean score=-100 state=0 Authentication-Results: mx1.messagingengine.com; arc=none (no signatures found); dkim=none (no signatures found); dmarc=fail (p=none,has-list-id=yes,d=none) header.from=linux.vnet.ibm.com; iprev=pass policy.iprev=209.132.180.67 (vger.kernel.org); spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-security-module-owner@vger.kernel.org smtp.helo=vger.kernel.org; x-aligned-from=fail; x-cm=none score=0; x-ptr=pass smtp.helo=vger.kernel.org policy.ptr=vger.kernel.org; x-return-mx=pass smtp.domain=vger.kernel.org smtp.result=pass smtp_org.domain=kernel.org smtp_org.result=pass smtp_is_org_domain=no header.domain=linux.vnet.ibm.com header.result=pass header_org.domain=ibm.com header_org.result=pass header_is_org_domain=no; x-vs=clean score=-100 state=0 X-ME-VSCategory: clean X-CM-Envelope: MS4wfKsbYCmxbRvbnnZB/JlHICBF/SD1PqdQVEkFQsy5+Vkc4skF4KmSh+SFXx9L6WqX6Ew26TBcn96HyJTzB67i49PCrP6gnbvfuKIDLOcVWKO6R0c5YAVU ahavLFap1HLeoz89H5MWb+wjkBa2EUtvyOhcYdKnATn3wW1PfbSoRyW2h3BfB0cGQTAoopTIPnGInGndgWCwom+ku7MuZ4yutvyO8BenOsRES84+V8nHNoIC kvaE/DcXY1ppsnUMPyxGjQ== X-CM-Analysis: v=2.3 cv=WaUilXpX c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=UK1r566ZdBxH71SXbqIOeA==:117 a=UK1r566ZdBxH71SXbqIOeA==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=7mUfYlMuFuIA:10 a=VwQbUJbxAAAA:8 a=18aXAE-iQdpnPZATxN0A:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=x8gzFH9gYPwA:10 a=AjGcO6oz07-iQ99wixmX:22 X-ME-CMScore: 0 X-ME-CMCategory: none Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752062AbeFDOEJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jun 2018 10:04:09 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:33273 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751933AbeFDOEI (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jun 2018 10:04:08 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/8] kexec/firmware: support system wide policy requiring signatures From: Mimi Zohar To: Casey Schaufler , James Morris , Kees Cook , Paul Moore , "Serge E. Hallyn" Cc: linux-integrity , linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Howells , "Luis R . Rodriguez" , Eric Biederman , kexec@lists.infradead.org, Andres Rodriguez , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Ard Biesheuvel , Jessica Yu Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2018 10:03:45 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1527616920-5415-1-git-send-email-zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <1527616920-5415-1-git-send-email-zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.20.5 (3.20.5-1.fc24) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 18060414-0028-0000-0000-000002CC87E8 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 18060414-0029-0000-0000-000023830E2C Message-Id: <1528121025.3237.116.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2018-06-04_10:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1805220000 definitions=main-1806040166 Sender: owner-linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org X-getmail-retrieved-from-mailbox: INBOX X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 2018-05-29 at 14:01 -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote: > Instead of adding the security_kernel_read_file LSM hook - or defining a > wrapper for security_kernel_read_file LSM hook and adding it, or > renaming the existing hook to security_kernel_read_data() and adding it > - in places where the kernel isn't reading a file, this version of the > patch set defines a new LSM hook named security_kernel_load_data(). > > The new LSM hook does not replace the existing security_kernel_read_file > LSM hook, which is still needed, but defines a new LSM hook allowing > LSMs and IMA-appraisal the opportunity to fail loading userspace > provided file/data. > > The only difference between the two LSM hooks is the LSM hook name and a > file descriptor. Whether this is cause enough for requiring a new LSM > hook, is left to the security community. Paul does not have a preference as to adding a new LSM hook or calling the existing hook.  Either way is fine, as long as both the new and existing hooks call the existing function. Casey didn't like the idea of a wrapper. James suggested renaming the LSM hook. The maintainers for the callers of the LSM hook prefer a meaningful LSM hook name.  The "null" argument is not as much of a concern.  Only Eric seems to be asking for a separate, new LSM hook, without the "null" argument. Unless someone really objects, to accommodate Eric we'll define a new LSM hook named security_kernel_load_data.  Eric, are you planning on Ack'ing patches 1 & 2? Mimi