Re: [PATCH v1 4/8] LSM: Maintain a table of LSM attribute data
From: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: 2022-10-27 17:14:51
Also in:
linux-security-module, lkml
Possibly related (same subject, not in this thread)
- 2022-11-23 · [PATCH v1 4/8] LSM: Maintain a table of LSM attribute data · Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 10:08:23AM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
On 10/26/2022 11:29 PM, Greg KH wrote:quoted
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.
Yeah, that's confusing. "lsm_num_availble" might be better.
quoted
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?
There's nothing wrong with seeing this patch, I was just confused as it seemed to be a user facing api. It wasn't obvious to me, sorry. greg k-h