[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 16:40:34 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
Cc: Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, David Drysdale <drysdale@...gle.com>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, "Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>, Jann Horn <jann@...jh.net>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>, Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
Sargun Dhillon <sargun@...gun.me>, "Serge E . Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>, Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v6 04/11] landlock: Add LSM hooks related to filesystem
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com> wrote:
> On 4/18/2017 3:44 PM, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
>> On 19/04/2017 00:17, Kees Cook wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 4:46 PM, Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net> wrote:
>>>> +void __init landlock_add_hooks(void)
>>>> +{
>>>> + pr_info("landlock: Version %u", LANDLOCK_VERSION);
>>>> + landlock_add_hooks_fs();
>>>> + security_add_hooks(NULL, 0, "landlock");
>>>> + bpf_register_prog_type(&bpf_landlock_type);
>>> I'm confused by the separation of hook registration here. The call to
>>> security_add_hooks is with count=0 is especially weird. Why isn't this
>>> just a single call with security_add_hooks(landlock_hooks,
>>> ARRAY_SIZE(landlock_hooks), "landlock")?
>> Yes, this is ugly with the new security_add_hooks() with three arguments
>> but I wanted to split the hooks definition in multiple files.
>
> Why? I'll buy a good argument, but there are dangers in
> allowing multiple calls to security_add_hooks().
>
>>
>> The current security_add_hooks() use lsm_append(lsm, &lsm_names) which
>> is not exported. Unfortunately, calling multiple security_add_hooks()
>> with the same LSM name would register multiple names for the same LSM…
>> Is it OK if I modify this function to not add duplicated entries?
>
> It may seem absurd, but it's conceivable that a module might
> have two hooks it wants called. My example is a module that
> counts the number of times SELinux denies a process access to
> things (which needs to be called before and after SELinux in
> order to detect denials) and takes "appropriate action" if
> too many denials occur. It would be weird, wonky and hackish,
> but that never stopped anybody before.
If ends up being sane and clear, I'm fine with allowing multiple calls.
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
