On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 10:25 PM, Tetsuo Handa
[off-list ref] wrote:

Sargun Dhillon wrote:

quoted

quoted

  Remove SECURITY_HOOK_COUNT and "struct security_hook_list"->owner and
  the exception in randomize_layout_plugin.c because preventing module
  unloading won't work as expected.

Rather than completely removing the unloading code, might it make
sense to add a BUG_ON or WARN_ON, in security_delete_hooks if
allow_unload_module is false, and owner is not NULL?

Do we need to check ->owner != NULL? Although it will be true that
SELinux's ->owner == NULL and LKM-based LSM module's ->owner != NULL,
I think we unregister SELinux before setting allow_unload_module to false.
Thus, rejecting delete_security_hooks() if allow_unload_module == false will
be sufficient. SELinux might want to call panic() if delete_security_hooks()
did not unregister due to allow_unload_module == false. Also,
allow_unload_module would be renamed to allow_unregister_module.

By the way, please don't use BUG_ON() or WARN_ON() because syzbot would hit
and call panic() because syzbot runs tests with panic_on_warn == true.

I think my primary question is for the SELinux folks -- what do you
think the behaviour should be? If allow_unload_modules /
allow_unregister_module is set, do you want to be able to call
security_delete_hooks? What do you think the right
action should be if it fails?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in
the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html