| Message ID | 20180925001832.18322-13-keescook@chromium.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | LSM: Explict LSM ordering | expand |
On 09/24/2018 05:18 PM, Kees Cook wrote: > This provides a place for ordered LSMs to be initialized, separate from > the "major" LSMs. This is mainly a copy/paste from major_lsm_init() to > ordered_lsm_init(), but it will change drastically in later patches. > > What is not obvious in the patch is that this change moves the integrity > LSM from major_lsm_init() into ordered_lsm_init(), since it is not marked > with the LSM_FLAG_LEGACY_MAJOR. As it is the only LSM in the "ordered" > list, there is no reordering yet created. > > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> I know its already being done, but I don't like splitting the init order Reviewed-by: John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com> > --- > security/security.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/security/security.c b/security/security.c > index 1f055936a746..a886a978214a 100644 > --- a/security/security.c > +++ b/security/security.c > @@ -52,12 +52,30 @@ static bool debug __initdata; > pr_info(__VA_ARGS__); \ > } while (0) > > +static void __init ordered_lsm_init(void) > +{ > + struct lsm_info *lsm; > + int ret; > + > + for (lsm = __start_lsm_info; lsm < __end_lsm_info; lsm++) { > + if ((lsm->flags & LSM_FLAG_LEGACY_MAJOR) != 0) > + continue; > + > + init_debug("initializing %s\n", lsm->name); > + ret = lsm->init(); > + WARN(ret, "%s failed to initialize: %d\n", lsm->name, ret); > + } > +} > + > static void __init major_lsm_init(void) > { > struct lsm_info *lsm; > int ret; > > for (lsm = __start_lsm_info; lsm < __end_lsm_info; lsm++) { > + if ((lsm->flags & LSM_FLAG_LEGACY_MAJOR) == 0) > + continue; > + > init_debug("initializing %s\n", lsm->name); > ret = lsm->init(); > WARN(ret, "%s failed to initialize: %d\n", lsm->name, ret); > @@ -87,6 +105,9 @@ int __init security_init(void) > yama_add_hooks(); > loadpin_add_hooks(); > > + /* Load LSMs in specified order. */ > + ordered_lsm_init(); > + > /* > * Load all the remaining security modules. > */ >
On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 2:17 PM, John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com> wrote: > On 09/24/2018 05:18 PM, Kees Cook wrote: >> This provides a place for ordered LSMs to be initialized, separate from >> the "major" LSMs. This is mainly a copy/paste from major_lsm_init() to >> ordered_lsm_init(), but it will change drastically in later patches. >> >> What is not obvious in the patch is that this change moves the integrity >> LSM from major_lsm_init() into ordered_lsm_init(), since it is not marked >> with the LSM_FLAG_LEGACY_MAJOR. As it is the only LSM in the "ordered" >> list, there is no reordering yet created. >> >> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> > > I know its already being done, but I don't like splitting the init > order Can you describe what you mean here? Do you mean having two init functions? This is only done temporarily while the other pieces are reorganized. The later patches reintegrate this. (Before this series, we effectively had three implicit init paths: minor, major, and integrity, so even this patch "alone" is an improvement IMO.) Thanks for the reviews! -Kees
diff --git a/security/security.c b/security/security.c index 1f055936a746..a886a978214a 100644 --- a/security/security.c +++ b/security/security.c @@ -52,12 +52,30 @@ static bool debug __initdata; pr_info(__VA_ARGS__); \ } while (0) +static void __init ordered_lsm_init(void) +{ + struct lsm_info *lsm; + int ret; + + for (lsm = __start_lsm_info; lsm < __end_lsm_info; lsm++) { + if ((lsm->flags & LSM_FLAG_LEGACY_MAJOR) != 0) + continue; + + init_debug("initializing %s\n", lsm->name); + ret = lsm->init(); + WARN(ret, "%s failed to initialize: %d\n", lsm->name, ret); + } +} + static void __init major_lsm_init(void) { struct lsm_info *lsm; int ret; for (lsm = __start_lsm_info; lsm < __end_lsm_info; lsm++) { + if ((lsm->flags & LSM_FLAG_LEGACY_MAJOR) == 0) + continue; + init_debug("initializing %s\n", lsm->name); ret = lsm->init(); WARN(ret, "%s failed to initialize: %d\n", lsm->name, ret); @@ -87,6 +105,9 @@ int __init security_init(void) yama_add_hooks(); loadpin_add_hooks(); + /* Load LSMs in specified order. */ + ordered_lsm_init(); + /* * Load all the remaining security modules. */
This provides a place for ordered LSMs to be initialized, separate from the "major" LSMs. This is mainly a copy/paste from major_lsm_init() to ordered_lsm_init(), but it will change drastically in later patches. What is not obvious in the patch is that this change moves the integrity LSM from major_lsm_init() into ordered_lsm_init(), since it is not marked with the LSM_FLAG_LEGACY_MAJOR. As it is the only LSM in the "ordered" list, there is no reordering yet created. Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> --- security/security.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+)