Re: [PATCH 1/9] integrity: Prepare for having "ima" and "evm" available in "integrity" LSM
From: Kees Cook <hidden>
Date: 2022-10-17 18:11:14
Also in:
linux-hardening, linux-integrity, lkml
On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 11:26:44AM +0200, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
On 14/10/2022 19:59, Kees Cook wrote:quoted
On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 04:40:01PM +0200, Mickaël Salaün wrote:quoted
This is not backward compatibleWhy? Nothing will be running LSM hooks until init finishes, at which point the integrity inode cache will be allocated. And ima and evm don't start up until lateinit.quoted
, but can easily be fixed thanks to DEFINE_LSM().orderThat forces the LSM to be enabled, which may not be desired?This is not backward compatible because currently IMA is enabled independently of the "lsm=" cmdline, which means that for all installed systems using IMA and also with a custom "lsm=" cmdline, updating the kernel with this patch will (silently) disable IMA. Using ".order = LSM_ORDER_FIRST," should keep this behavior. BTW, I think we should set such order (but maybe rename it) for LSMs that do nothing unless configured (e.g. Yama, Landlock).
Ah yeah, good point. the .enabled stuff will need to be correctly wired up. Anyway, it's a good starting point for the conversion, so I'm hoping it can be carried forward by someone who is not me. :) (Hint hint to the integrity folks...)
quoted
quoted
Side node: I proposed an alternative to that but it was Nacked: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20210222150608.808146-1-mic@digikod.net/ (local)Yeah, for the reasons pointed out -- that can't work. The point is to not have The Default LSM. I do think Casey's NAK was rather prickly, though. ;)I don't agree, there is no "the default LSM", and this new behavior is under an LSM_AUTO configuration option.
The "config it twice" aspect of the current situation is suboptimal, yes. Let me go comment on the old thread... -- Kees Cook