| Message ID | 50db058a-7dde-441b-a7f9-f6837fe8b69f@schaufler-ca.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | LSM: Module stacking for SARA and Landlock | expand |
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 3:22 PM Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote: > v5: Include Kees Cook's rework of the lsm command > line interface. Stacking is not conditional. Can you resend this series with corrected "From:" lines in the body, etc? Beyond that, I obviously like it. James, what's needed for this to move forward?
On 12/4/2018 4:31 PM, Kees Cook wrote: > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 3:22 PM Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote: >> v5: Include Kees Cook's rework of the lsm command >> line interface. Stacking is not conditional. > Can you resend this series with corrected "From:" lines in the body, etc? Yes, I can. I was hoping to hear something other than crickets. > Beyond that, I obviously like it. James, what's needed for this to move forward? Agreed.
On 12/4/18 6:37 PM, Casey Schaufler wrote: > On 12/4/2018 4:31 PM, Kees Cook wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 3:22 PM Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote: >>> v5: Include Kees Cook's rework of the lsm command >>> line interface. Stacking is not conditional. >> Can you resend this series with corrected "From:" lines in the body, etc? > > Yes, I can. I was hoping to hear something other than crickets. > I am trying to get to it, its the next thing on my list. So hopefully this week >> Beyond that, I obviously like it. James, what's needed for this to move forward? > > Agreed. >
On Tue, 4 Dec 2018, Kees Cook wrote: > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 3:22 PM Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote: > > v5: Include Kees Cook's rework of the lsm command > > line interface. Stacking is not conditional. > > Can you resend this series with corrected "From:" lines in the body, etc? > > Beyond that, I obviously like it. James, what's needed for this to move forward? If there are no outstanding issues, I plan to merge this for 4.21.
On 2018/12/12 3:57, James Morris wrote: > On Tue, 4 Dec 2018, Kees Cook wrote: > >> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 3:22 PM Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote: >>> v5: Include Kees Cook's rework of the lsm command >>> line interface. Stacking is not conditional. >> >> Can you resend this series with corrected "From:" lines in the body, etc? >> >> Beyond that, I obviously like it. James, what's needed for this to move forward? > > If there are no outstanding issues, I plan to merge this for 4.21. > Then, can we send it to linux-next.git shortly so that we can have some time for testing by syzbot?
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:57 AM James Morris <jmorris@namei.org> wrote: > > On Tue, 4 Dec 2018, Kees Cook wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 3:22 PM Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote: > > > v5: Include Kees Cook's rework of the lsm command > > > line interface. Stacking is not conditional. > > > > Can you resend this series with corrected "From:" lines in the body, etc? > > > > Beyond that, I obviously like it. James, what's needed for this to move forward? > > If there are no outstanding issues, I plan to merge this for 4.21. Yeah, it looks good to me. (Excepting getting the authorship sorted.) Thanks!
On Wed, 12 Dec 2018, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > On 2018/12/12 3:57, James Morris wrote: > > On Tue, 4 Dec 2018, Kees Cook wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 3:22 PM Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote: > >>> v5: Include Kees Cook's rework of the lsm command > >>> line interface. Stacking is not conditional. > >> > >> Can you resend this series with corrected "From:" lines in the body, etc? > >> > >> Beyond that, I obviously like it. James, what's needed for this to move forward? > > > > If there are no outstanding issues, I plan to merge this for 4.21. > > > > Then, can we send it to linux-next.git shortly > so that we can have some time for testing by syzbot? It's best to let the 4.20 cycle complete (so as not to confuse things there) and then merge it for next in -rc1.
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 1:19 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:57 AM James Morris <jmorris@namei.org> wrote: > > > > On Tue, 4 Dec 2018, Kees Cook wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 3:22 PM Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote: > > > > v5: Include Kees Cook's rework of the lsm command > > > > line interface. Stacking is not conditional. > > > > > > Can you resend this series with corrected "From:" lines in the body, etc? > > > > > > Beyond that, I obviously like it. James, what's needed for this to move forward? > > > > If there are no outstanding issues, I plan to merge this for 4.21. > > Yeah, it looks good to me. (Excepting getting the authorship sorted.) I didn't see this actually get merged? Was there something that needed fixing? Should I send you a direct pull request for v5.1?
On Mon, 7 Jan 2019, Kees Cook wrote: > On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 1:19 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:57 AM James Morris <jmorris@namei.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 4 Dec 2018, Kees Cook wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 3:22 PM Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote: > > > > > v5: Include Kees Cook's rework of the lsm command > > > > > line interface. Stacking is not conditional. > > > > > > > > Can you resend this series with corrected "From:" lines in the body, etc? > > > > > > > > Beyond that, I obviously like it. James, what's needed for this to move forward? > > > > > > If there are no outstanding issues, I plan to merge this for 4.21. > > > > Yeah, it looks good to me. (Excepting getting the authorship sorted.) > > I didn't see this actually get merged? Was there something that needed > fixing? Should I send you a direct pull request for v5.1? Yep, please send a new pull request.
On 1/8/2019 1:05 PM, James Morris wrote: > On Mon, 7 Jan 2019, Kees Cook wrote: > >> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 1:19 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote: >>> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:57 AM James Morris <jmorris@namei.org> wrote: >>>> On Tue, 4 Dec 2018, Kees Cook wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 3:22 PM Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote: >>>>>> v5: Include Kees Cook's rework of the lsm command >>>>>> line interface. Stacking is not conditional. >>>>> Can you resend this series with corrected "From:" lines in the body, etc? >>>>> >>>>> Beyond that, I obviously like it. James, what's needed for this to move forward? >>>> If there are no outstanding issues, I plan to merge this for 4.21. >>> Yeah, it looks good to me. (Excepting getting the authorship sorted.) >> I didn't see this actually get merged? Was there something that needed >> fixing? Should I send you a direct pull request for v5.1? > Yep, please send a new pull request. Do you want it as is or rebased on 5.0-rc1?
On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 1:37 PM Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote: > > On 1/8/2019 1:05 PM, James Morris wrote: > > On Mon, 7 Jan 2019, Kees Cook wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 1:19 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote: > >>> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:57 AM James Morris <jmorris@namei.org> wrote: > >>>> On Tue, 4 Dec 2018, Kees Cook wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 3:22 PM Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote: > >>>>>> v5: Include Kees Cook's rework of the lsm command > >>>>>> line interface. Stacking is not conditional. > >>>>> Can you resend this series with corrected "From:" lines in the body, etc? > >>>>> > >>>>> Beyond that, I obviously like it. James, what's needed for this to move forward? > >>>> If there are no outstanding issues, I plan to merge this for 4.21. > >>> Yeah, it looks good to me. (Excepting getting the authorship sorted.) > >> I didn't see this actually get merged? Was there something that needed > >> fixing? Should I send you a direct pull request for v5.1? > > Yep, please send a new pull request. > > Do you want it as is or rebased on 5.0-rc1? I've rebased to 5.0-rc1, did some light (re)testing, and sent a pull request...
On 1/8/2019 1:42 PM, Kees Cook wrote: > On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 1:37 PM Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote: >> On 1/8/2019 1:05 PM, James Morris wrote: >>> On Mon, 7 Jan 2019, Kees Cook wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 1:19 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:57 AM James Morris <jmorris@namei.org> wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, 4 Dec 2018, Kees Cook wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 3:22 PM Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> v5: Include Kees Cook's rework of the lsm command >>>>>>>> line interface. Stacking is not conditional. >>>>>>> Can you resend this series with corrected "From:" lines in the body, etc? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Beyond that, I obviously like it. James, what's needed for this to move forward? >>>>>> If there are no outstanding issues, I plan to merge this for 4.21. >>>>> Yeah, it looks good to me. (Excepting getting the authorship sorted.) >>>> I didn't see this actually get merged? Was there something that needed >>>> fixing? Should I send you a direct pull request for v5.1? >>> Yep, please send a new pull request. >> Do you want it as is or rebased on 5.0-rc1? > I've rebased to 5.0-rc1, did some light (re)testing, and sent a pull request... Thank you.
v5: Include Kees Cook's rework of the lsm command line interface. Stacking is not conditional. v4: Finer granularity in the patches and other cleanups suggested by Kees Cook. Removed dead code created by the removal of SELinux credential blob poisoning. v3: Add ipc blob for SARA and task blob for Landlock. Removing the SELinux cred blob pointer poisoning results selinux_is_enabled() being unused, so it and all it's overhead has been removed. Broke up the cred infrastructure patch. v2: Reduce the patchset to what is required to support the proposed SARA and LandLock security modules The SARA security module is intended to be used in conjunction with other security modules. It requires state to be maintained for the credential, which in turn requires a mechanism for sharing the credential security blob. It also uses the ipc security blob. The module also requires mechanism for user space manipulation of the credential information, hence an additional subdirectory in /proc/.../attr. The LandLock security module provides user configurable policy in the secmark mechanism. It requires data in the credential, file, inode and task security blobs. For this to be used along side the existing "major" security modules mechanism for sharing these blobs are provided. A side effect of providing sharing of the crendential security blob is that the TOMOYO module can be used at the same time as the other "major" modules. The "security=" option works as before. A new "lsm=" option allows the order of module execution to be supplied at boot time. The security module stacking issues around networking and IPC are not addressed here as they are beyond what is required for TOMOYO, SARA and LandLock. git://github.com/cschaufler/lsm-stacking.git#blob-4.20-rc2 Signed-off-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> --- Documentation/admin-guide/LSM/index.rst | 13 +- Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt | 4 + fs/proc/base.c | 64 ++- fs/proc/internal.h | 1 + include/linux/cred.h | 1 - include/linux/lsm_hooks.h | 40 +- include/linux/security.h | 15 +- include/linux/selinux.h | 35 -- kernel/cred.c | 13 - security/Kconfig | 41 +- security/apparmor/Kconfig | 16 - security/apparmor/domain.c | 2 +- security/apparmor/include/cred.h | 16 +- security/apparmor/include/file.h | 5 +- security/apparmor/include/lib.h | 4 + security/apparmor/include/task.h | 18 +- security/apparmor/lsm.c | 65 ++- security/apparmor/task.c | 6 +- security/commoncap.c | 9 +- security/loadpin/loadpin.c | 8 +- security/security.c | 635 +++++++++++++++++++++--- security/selinux/Kconfig | 15 - security/selinux/Makefile | 2 +- security/selinux/exports.c | 23 - security/selinux/hooks.c | 345 ++++--------- security/selinux/include/audit.h | 3 - security/selinux/include/objsec.h | 38 +- security/selinux/selinuxfs.c | 4 +- security/selinux/ss/services.c | 1 - security/selinux/xfrm.c | 4 +- security/smack/smack.h | 44 +- security/smack/smack_access.c | 4 +- security/smack/smack_lsm.c | 316 ++++-------- security/smack/smackfs.c | 18 +- security/tomoyo/common.h | 22 +- security/tomoyo/domain.c | 4 +- security/tomoyo/securityfs_if.c | 15 +- security/tomoyo/tomoyo.c | 49 +- security/yama/yama_lsm.c | 8 +- 39 files changed, 1133 insertions(+), 793 deletions(-)