[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2021 12:29:14 -0800
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
Cc: Alexander Popov <alex.popov@...ux.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>, Maciej Rozycki <macro@...am.me.uk>,
Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>, Wei Liu <wl@....org>,
John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@...abs.ru>,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
Laura Abbott <labbott@...nel.org>,
David S Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Andrew Scull <ascull@...gle.com>, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>, Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@...gle.com>,
Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
Wang Qing <wangqing@...o.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>,
Andrew Klychkov <andrew.a.klychkov@...il.com>,
Mathieu Chouquet-Stringer <me@...hieu.digital>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Stephen Kitt <steve@....org>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org,
"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, notify@...nel.org,
main@...ts.elisa.tech, safety-architecture@...ts.elisa.tech,
devel@...ts.elisa.tech, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Introduce the pkill_on_warn parameter
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 10:30:32AM -0800, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> On 11/18/2021 9:32 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 11:00:23AM -0800, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> > > On 11/16/2021 10:41 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 12:12:16PM +0300, Alexander Popov wrote:
> > > > > What if the Linux kernel had a LSM module responsible for error handling policy?
> > > > > That would require adding LSM hooks to BUG*(), WARN*(), KERN_EMERG, etc.
> > > > > In such LSM policy we can decide immediately how to react on the kernel error.
> > > > > We can even decide depending on the subsystem and things like that.
> > > > That would solve the "atomicity" issue the WARN tracepoint solution has,
> > > > and it would allow for very flexible userspace policy.
> > > >
> > > > I actually wonder if the existing panic_on_* sites should serve as a
> > > > guide for where to put the hooks. The current sysctls could be replaced
> > > > by the hooks and a simple LSM.
> > > Do you really want to make error handling a "security" issue?
> > > If you add security_bug(), security_warn_on() and the like
> > > you're begging that they be included in SELinux (AppArmor) policy.
> > > BPF, too, come to think of it. Is that what you want?
> > Yeah, that is what I was thinking. This would give the LSM a view into
> > kernel state, which seems a reasonable thing to do. If system integrity
> > is compromised, an LSM may want to stop trusting things.
>
> How are you planning to communicate the security relevance of the
> warning to the LSM? I don't think that __FILE__, __LINE__ or __func__
> is great information to base security policy on. Nor is a backtrace.
I think that would be part of the design proposal. Initially, the known
parts are "warn or bug" and "pid".
> > A dedicated error-handling LSM could be added for those hooks that
> > implemented the existing default panic_on_* sysctls, and could expand on
> > that logic for other actions.
>
> I can see having an interface like LSM for choosing a bug/warn policy.
> I worry about expanding the LSM hook list for a case where I would
> hope no existing LSM would use them, and the new LSM doesn't use any
> of the existing hooks.
Yeah, I can see that, though we've got a history of the "specialized"
hooks getting used by other LSMs. (e.g. loadpin's stuff got hooked up to
other LSMs, etc.)
--
Kees Cook
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.
