Thread (47 messages) 47 messages, 7 authors, 2022-11-11

Re: [PATCH v1 4/8] LSM: Maintain a table of LSM attribute data

From: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
Date: 2022-10-27 17:08:38
Also in: linux-security-module, lkml

Possibly related (same subject, not in this thread)

On 10/26/2022 11:29 PM, Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 05:38:21PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
quoted
On 10/25/2022 11:00 PM, Greg KH wrote:
quoted
On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 11:45:15AM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
quoted
As LSMs are registered add their lsm_id pointers to a table.
This will be used later for attribute reporting.

Signed-off-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
---
 include/linux/security.h | 17 +++++++++++++++++
 security/security.c      | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 35 insertions(+)
diff --git a/include/linux/security.h b/include/linux/security.h
index ca1b7109c0db..e1678594d983 100644
--- a/include/linux/security.h
+++ b/include/linux/security.h
@@ -138,6 +138,23 @@ enum lockdown_reason {
 
 extern const char *const lockdown_reasons[LOCKDOWN_CONFIDENTIALITY_MAX+1];
 
+#define LSMID_ENTRIES ( \
+	1 + /* capabilities */ \
No #define for capabilities?
Nope. There isn't one. CONFIG_SECURITY takes care of it.
quoted
quoted
+	(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SECURITY_SELINUX) ? 1 : 0) + \
+	(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SECURITY_SMACK) ? 1 : 0) + \
+	(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SECURITY_TOMOYO) ? 1 : 0) + \
+	(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SECURITY_IMA) ? 1 : 0) + \
+	(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR) ? 1 : 0) + \
+	(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SECURITY_YAMA) ? 1 : 0) + \
+	(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SECURITY_LOADPIN) ? 1 : 0) + \
+	(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SECURITY_SAFESETID) ? 1 : 0) + \
+	(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SECURITY_LOCKDOWN) ? 1 : 0) + \
+	(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_BPF_LSM) ? 1 : 0) + \
+	(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SECURITY_LANDLOCK) ? 1 : 0))
+
+extern int lsm_id;
u64?
u32. I doubt we'll get more than 32K security modules.
These should be bits, not values, right?
lsm_id is the count of security modules that are registered.
It seemed like a good name for the value at the time, but as
it's causing confusion I should probably change it.
Wait, this magic entry value is going to change depeneding on what is,
or is not, enabled.  How is that a stable user/kernel api at all?

confused.
I'll clarify.

This patch isn't implementing an API, but is required by subsequent
patches that do. Does linux-api want to see patches that are in support
of APIs, or just those with actual API implementation?

Thank you.
greg k-h
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help