Re: [PATCH net-next v6 04/11] landlock: Add LSM hooks related to filesystem

[Kees Cook]

On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Casey Schaufler <casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 4/18/2017 3:44 PM, MickaÃl SalaÃn wrote:
>> On 19/04/2017 00:17, Kees Cook wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 4:46 PM, MickaÃl SalaÃn <mic@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> +void __init landlock_add_hooks(void)
>>>> +{
>>>> +       pr_info("landlock: Version %u", LANDLOCK_VERSION);
>>>> +       landlock_add_hooks_fs();
>>>> +       security_add_hooks(NULL, 0, "landlock");
>>>> +       bpf_register_prog_type(&bpf_landlock_type);
>>> I'm confused by the separation of hook registration here. The call to
>>> security_add_hooks is with count=0 is especially weird. Why isn't this
>>> just a single call with security_add_hooks(landlock_hooks,
>>> ARRAY_SIZE(landlock_hooks), "landlock")?
>> Yes, this is ugly with the new security_add_hooks() with three arguments
>> but I wanted to split the hooks definition in multiple files.
>
> Why? I'll buy a good argument, but there are dangers in
> allowing multiple calls to security_add_hooks().
>
>>
>> The current security_add_hooks() use lsm_append(lsm, &lsm_names) which
>> is not exported. Unfortunately, calling multiple security_add_hooks()
>> with the same LSM name would register multiple names for the same LSMâ
>> Is it OK if I modify this function to not add duplicated entries?
>
> It may seem absurd, but it's conceivable that a module might
> have two hooks it wants called. My example is a module that
> counts the number of times SELinux denies a process access to
> things (which needs to be called before and after SELinux in
> order to detect denials) and takes "appropriate action" if
> too many denials occur. It would be weird, wonky and hackish,
> but that never stopped anybody before.

If ends up being sane and clear, I'm fine with allowing multiple calls.

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security