Re: [PATCH v4 00/19] LSM: Module stacking for SARA and Landlock

[Casey Schaufler]

On 9/24/2018 8:01 AM, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> On 09/23/2018 01:09 PM, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>> On 9/23/2018 8:59 AM, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>>> On 2018/09/23 11:43, Kees Cook wrote:
>>>>>> I'm excited about getting this landed!
>>>>> Soon. Real soon. I hope. I would very much like for
>>>>> someone from the SELinux camp to chime in, especially on
>>>>> the selinux_is_enabled() removal.
>>>> Agreed.
>>>>
>>> This patchset from Casey lands before the patchset from Kees, doesn't it?
>>
>> That is up for negotiation. We may end up combining them.
>>
>>> OK, a few comments (if I didn't overlook something).
>>>
>>> ÂÂ lsm_early_cred()/lsm_early_task() are called from only __init functions.
>>
>> True.
>>
>>> ÂÂ lsm_cred_alloc()/lsm_file_alloc() are called from only security/security.c .
>>
>> Also true.
>>
>>> ÂÂ lsm_early_inode() should be avoided because it is not appropriate to
>>> ÂÂ call panic() when lsm_early_inode() is called after __init phase.
>>
>> You're correct. In fact, lsm_early_inode() isn't needed at all
>> until multiple inode using modules are supported.
>>
>>> ÂÂ Since all free hooks are called when one of init hooks failed, each
>>> ÂÂ free hook needs to check whether init hook was called. An example is
>>> ÂÂ inode_free_security() in security/selinux/hooks.c (but not addressed in
>>> ÂÂ this patch).
>>
>> I *think* that selinux_inode_free_security() is safe in this
>> case because the blob will be zeroed, hence isec->list will
>> be NULL.
>
> That's not safe - look more closely at what list_empty_careful() tests, and then think about what happens when list_del_init() gets called on that isec->list. selinux_inode_free_security() presumes that selinux_inode_alloc_security() has been called already. If you are breaking that assumption, you have to fix it.

Yup. I misread the macro my first time around. Easy fix.

> Is there a reason you can't make inode_alloc_security() return void since you moved the allocation to the framework? 

No reason with any of the existing modules, But I could see someone
doing unnatural things during allocation that might result in a
failure.

> Unfortunate that inode_init_security name is already in use for another purpose since essentially you have reduced these hooks to initialization only.

I considered that but decided that it makes more sense for the module hook names
to match the infrastructure name. Having security_inode_alloc() call
selinux_inode_setup_security() starts to get confusing.