lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Feb]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 3/3] security: Add LSMs dependencies to CONFIG_LSM
From
Date

On 21/02/2021 09:50, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 4:03 AM Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 7:17 PM Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> wrote:
>>> From: Mickaël Salaün <mic@linux.microsoft.com>
>>>
>>> Thanks to the previous commit, this gives the opportunity to users, when
>>> running make oldconfig, to update the list of enabled LSMs at boot time
>>> if an LSM has just been enabled or disabled in the build. Moreover,
>>> this list only makes sense if at least one LSM is enabled.
>>>
>>> Cc: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
>>> Cc: James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>
>>> Cc: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>
>>> Cc: Serge E. Hallyn <serge@hallyn.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Mickaël Salaün <mic@linux.microsoft.com>
>>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210215181511.2840674-4-mic@digikod.net
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Changes since v1:
>>> * Add CONFIG_SECURITY as a dependency of CONFIG_LSM. This prevent an
>>> error when building without any LSMs.
>>> ---
>>> security/Kconfig | 4 ++++
>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/security/Kconfig b/security/Kconfig
>>> index 7561f6f99f1d..addcc1c04701 100644
>>> --- a/security/Kconfig
>>> +++ b/security/Kconfig
>>> @@ -277,6 +277,10 @@ endchoice
>>>
>>> config LSM
>>> string "Ordered list of enabled LSMs"
>>> + depends on SECURITY || SECURITY_LOCKDOWN_LSM || SECURITY_YAMA || \
>>> + SECURITY_LOADPIN || SECURITY_SAFESETID || INTEGRITY || \
>>> + SECURITY_SELINUX || SECURITY_SMACK || SECURITY_TOMOYO || \
>>> + SECURITY_APPARMOR || BPF_LSM
>>
>> This looks really awkward, since all of these already depend on
>> SECURITY (if not, it's a bug)... I guarantee you that after some time
>> someone will come, see that the weird boolean expression is equivalent
>> to just SECURITY, and simplify it.
>
>
> Currently, LSM does not depend on SECURITY.
> So you can always define LSM irrespective of SECURITY,
> which seems a bug.
>
> So, I agree with adding 'depends on SECURITY'.
>
> What he is trying to achieve in this series
> seems wrong, of course.

This may be wrong in the general case, but not for CONFIG_LSM.

>
>
>> I assume the new mechanism wouldn't work as intended if there is just
>> SECURITY? If not, then maybe you should rather specify this value
>> dependency via some new field rather than abusing "depends on" (say,
>> "value depends on"?). The fact that a seemingly innocent change to the
>> config definition breaks your mechanism suggests that the design is
>> flawed.

Masahiro, what do you think about this suggested "value depends on"?


>>
>> I do think this would be a useful feature, but IMHO shouldn't be
>> implemented like this.
>>
>>> default "lockdown,yama,loadpin,safesetid,integrity,smack,selinux,tomoyo,apparmor,bpf" if DEFAULT_SECURITY_SMACK
>>> default "lockdown,yama,loadpin,safesetid,integrity,apparmor,selinux,smack,tomoyo,bpf" if DEFAULT_SECURITY_APPARMOR
>>> default "lockdown,yama,loadpin,safesetid,integrity,tomoyo,bpf" if DEFAULT_SECURITY_TOMOYO
>>> --
>>> 2.30.0
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Ondrej Mosnacek
>> Software Engineer, Linux Security - SELinux kernel
>> Red Hat, Inc.
>>
>
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-02-21 12:12    [W:0.057 / U:12.828 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site