Re: LSM conversion to static interface

On Thursday 18 October 2007 04:18, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007, Thomas Fricaccia wrote:

But then I noticed that, while the LSM would remain in existence, it was
being closed to out-of-tree security frameworks. Yikes! Since then,
I've been following the rush to put SMACK, TOMOYO and AppArmor
"in-tree".

Yeah, it did come up. Andrew, when he sent it on to me, said that the SuSE
people were ok with it (AppArmor), but I'm with you - I applied it, but
I'm also perfectly willing to unapply it if there actually are valid
out-of-tree users that people push for not merging.

The patch doesn't hurt AppArmor, but it's still a step in the wrong direction.

Quoting from commit 20510f2f (Convert LSM into a static interface):
In a nutshell, there is no safe way to unload an LSM. The modular interface
is thus unecessary and broken infrastructure. It is used only by
out-of-tree modules, which are often binary-only, illegal, abusive of the
API and dangerous, e.g. silently re-vectoring SELinux.

This is idiotic. Just because there is no safe way to unload SELinux

- doesn't mean there is no safe way to unload other LSMs: if nothing
but that, unloading is handy during development.

- doesn't mean that module *loading* is unsafe. The patch removes module
loading as well, which hurts more than removing module unloading.

LSM can be abused ... so what, this doesn't mean the interface is bad. Non-LSM
loadable modules have been known to do lots of bad things, and yet nobody
made them non-loadable either (yet).

[...]
For example, I do kind of see the point that a "real" security model might
want to be compiled-in, and not something you override from a module.

Non-trivial modules (i.e., practically everything beyond capabilities) become
effective only after loading policy, anyway. If you can load policy, you can
as well first load a security module without making the system insecure.

Thanks,
Andreas
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Relevant Pages

  • Re: LSM conversion to static interface
    ... being closed to out-of-tree security frameworks. ... I remain carefully neutral regarding the static/dynamic LSM ... result shouldn't be the concern of kernel developers. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: LSM conversion to static interface
    ... On Wed, 17 Oct 2007, Casey Schaufler wrote: ... The in-tree vs out-of-tree discussion is independent of LSM. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)