lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Sep]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 10/10] LSM: Blob sharing support for S.A.R.A and LandLock
On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 4:32 PM, John Johansen
<john.johansen@canonical.com> wrote:
> On 09/13/2018 04:06 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>> - what order should any stacking happen? Makefile? security=?
>>
> Preferably not. For the single LSM we have the ability to choose the default LSM, ideally we let the distro decide in the Kconfig and the user with security=...

I can't find a non-crazy way to do this in Kconfig. Right now, if I
threw out all the _DEFAULT stuff, I could do:

config SECURITY_SELINUX_ENABLED
bool "SELinux LSM enabled at boot time"
depends on SECURITY_SELINUX
depends on !SECURITY_APPARMOR_ENABLED && !SECURITY_SMACK_ENABLED
default SECURITY_SELINUX

config SECURITY_SMACK_ENABLED
bool "SMACK LSM enabled at boot time"
depends on SECURITY_SMACK
depends on !SECURITY_APPARMOR_ENABLED && !SECURITY_SELINUX_ENABLED
default SECURITY_SMACK

config SECURITY_APPARMOR_ENABLED
bool "AppArmor LSM enabled at boot time"
depends on SECURITY_APPARMOR
depends on !SECURITY_SMACK_ENABLED && !SECURITY_SELINUX_ENABLED
default SECURITY_APPARMOR

config SECURITY_TOMOYO_ENABLED
bool "TOMOYO LSM enabled at boot time"
depends on SECURITY_TOMOYO
default y if !SECURITY_SELINUX_ENABLED &&
!SECURITY_SMACK_ENABLED && !SECURITY_APPARMOR_ENABLED

config DEFAULT_SECURITY
string
default "selinux" if SECURITY_SELINUX_ENABLED
default "smack" if SECURITY_SMACK_ENABLED
default "apparmor" if SECURITY_APPARMOR_ENABLED
default "tomoyo" if SECURITY_TOMOYO_ENABLED

(As before CONFIG_DEFAULT_SECURITY basically means the effective
"security=" contents. Reminder than Kconfig default are "first match",
so tomoyo would only happen if all others are not enabled by default.)

But this doesn't provide a way for Kconfig to declare the ordering of
TOMOYO followed by SELinux. If we just declare ordering is a function
of the Makefile, then the above would work as expected. The
"conflicting major LSM" could be specified on "security=" and stacked
could be enabled with $lsm.enable=1 (or disabled).

So, before we can really make a decision, I think we have to decide:
should ordering be arbitrary for even this level of stacking?

-Kees

--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-09-14 01:52    [W:0.139 / U:6.212 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site