Re: [PATCH security-next v4 23/32] selinux: Remove boot parameter
From: Kees Cook <hidden>
Date: 2018-10-02 23:06:31
Also in:
linux-arch, linux-doc, lkml
On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 3:06 PM, James Morris [off-list ref] wrote:
On Tue, 2 Oct 2018, Kees Cook wrote:quoted
On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 11:57 AM, John Johansen [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
Under the current scheme lsm.enabled=selinux could actually mean selinux,yama,loadpin,something_else are enabled. If we extend this behavior to when full stacking lands lsm.enabled=selinux,yama might mean selinux,yama,apparmor,loadpin,something_else and what that list is will vary from kernel to kernel, which I think is harder for the user than the lsm.enabled list being what is actually enabled at bootAh, I think I missed this in your earlier emails. What you don't like here is that "lsm.enable=" is additive. You want it to be explicit.This is a path to madness. How about enable flags set ONLY per LSM: lsm.selinux.enable=x lsm.apparmor.enable=x With no lsm.enable, and removing selinux=x and apparmor=x. Yes this will break existing docs, but they can be updated for newer kernel versions to say "replace selinux=0 with lsm.selinux.enable=0" from kernel X onwards. Surely distro packages and bootloaders are able to cope with changes to kernel parameters? We can either take a one-time hit now, or build new usability debt, which will confuse people forever.
I'd like to avoid this for a few reasons: - this requires per-LSM plumbing instead of centralized plumbing - each LSM needs to have its own CONFIG flag - each LSM needs to have its own bootparam flag - SELinux has explicited stated they do not want to lose selinux= - this doesn't meet John's goal of having a "single explicit enable list" I think the current proposal (in the other thread) is likely the sanest approach: - Drop CONFIG_SECURITY_SELINUX_BOOTPARAM_VALUE - Drop CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR_BOOTPARAM_VALUE - All enabled LSMs are listed at build-time in CONFIG_LSM_ENABLE - Boot time enabling for selinux= and apparmor= remain - lsm.enable= is explicit: overrides above and omissions are disabled - maybe include lsm.disable= to disable anything -Kees -- Kees Cook Pixel Security