Re: [PATCH 16/18] LSM: Allow arbitrary LSM ordering
From: Casey Schaufler
Date: Mon Sep 17 2018 - 15:23:36 EST
On 9/17/2018 11:14 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
>> Keep security=$lsm with the existing exclusive behavior.
>> Add lsm=$lsm1,...,$lsmN which requires a full list of modules
>> If you want to be fancy (I don't!) you could add
>> lsm.add=$lsm1,...,$lsmN which adds the modules to the stack
>> lsm.delete=$lsm1,...,$lsmN which deletes modules from the stack
> We've got two issues: ordering and enablement. It's been strongly
> suggested that we should move away from per-LSM enable/disable flags
> (to which I agree).
I also agree. There are way too many ways to turn off some LSMs.
> If ordering should be separate from enablement (to
> avoid the "booted kernel with new LSM built in, but my lsm="..." line
> didn't include it so it's disabled case), then I think we need to
> split the logic (otherwise we just reinvented "security=" with similar
We could reduce the problem by declaring that LSM ordering is
not something you can specify on the boot line. I can see value
in specifying it when you build the kernel, but your circumstances
would have to be pretty strange to change it at boot time.
> Should "lsm=" allow arbitrary ordering? (I think yes.)
I say no. Assume you can specify it at build time. When would
you want to change the order? Why would you?
> Should "lsm=" imply implicit enable/disable? (I think no: unlisted
> LSMs are implicitly auto-appended to the explicit list)
If you want to add something that isn't there instead of making
it explicit you want "lsm.enable=" not "lsm=".
> So then we could have "lsm.enable=..." and "lsm.disable=...".
> If builtin list was:
> lsm.disable=loadpin lsm=smack
Methinks this should be lsm.disable=loadpin lsm.enable=smack
> selinux.enable=0 lsm.add=loadpin lsm.disable=smack,tomoyo lsm=integrity
Do you mean
selinux.enable=0 lsm.enable=loadpin lsm.disable=smack,tomoyo lsm.enable=integrity
selinux.enable=0 lsm.enable=loadpin,integrity lsm.disable=smack,tomoyo
selinux.enable=0 lsm.enable=loadpin lsm.enable=integrity lsm.disable=smack lsm.disable=tomoyo
> If "lsm=" _does_ imply enablement, then how does it interact with
> per-LSM disabling? i.e. what does "apparmor.enabled=0
> lsm=yama,apparmor" mean? If it means "turn on apparmor" how do I turn
> on a CONFIG-default-off LSM without specifying all the other LSMs too?
There should either be one option "lsm=", which is an explicit list or
two, "lsm.enable=" and "lsm.disable", which modify the built in default.
In the "lsm=" case "apparmor.enabled=0" should be equivalent to leaving
apparmor off the list, but it's up to the AppArmor code to do that.
If "lsm.enable=apparmor apparmor.enabled=0" is specified the explict wish
of the security module is used, but it's up to the AppArmor code to do that.
If "lsm.disable=apparmor apparmor.enabled=1" is specified the infrastructure
should have shut down AppArmor before it looked to see the "apparmor.enabled=1",
so it will remain disabled.
If "lsm.enable=apparmor lsm.disable=apparmor" is specified the last value
specified is used giving "lsm.disable=apparmor".