Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1810040427550.13517@namei.org>
References: <20181002005505.6112-1-keescook@chromium.org> <20181002005505.6112-24-keescook@chromium.org>
 <CAHC9VhQjMfH6Q+Tif8nBknZojgxrb6x+oDz4vHRiZN8rb8MZ5Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <785ef6a9-ae46-3533-0348-74bcf6f10928@tycho.nsa.gov> <CAGXu5jKNzG3rGUAV39D0w4txHRG3H2qU1Z1e_b+03OgycTaWqA@mail.gmail.com>
 <809f1cfd-077b-ee58-51ba-b22daf46d12b@tycho.nsa.gov> <QpdcE4QSCQKJqDmB2QBEGBlnlioHuRHlM0g5HF8KbHjU1zIUAOjnQ2r9EIMu3m0S2OWNR3_M_TSp_M6CVDqkp6kKuFPUvegsyDPNw1AGju4=@protonmail.ch>
 <CAGXu5jKqXNbEvPr1axQtGCCnWsGhDgjynW5u326mcx4vZ1oH8g@mail.gmail.com>
 <abe03d09-4dcb-2b02-4102-5e108d617a42@canonical.com> <CAGXu5jJtC1gkJ0ZKDFroL8UzvjiPfmC+6EsrzyB0j0oETdSQQg@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.LRH.2.21.1810030758460.23596@namei.org> <CAGXu5jLKgrdhah-5TtAXDL-odbLGeyAUH2=PkAU769AkEnZFfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <5955f5ce-b803-4f58-8b07-54c291e33da5@canonical.com> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1810040416500.13517@namei.org>
 <CAGXu5j+oPR58oJ06-n7e96-Rmu+ywTW0hud5LhOZ_3UXG5s12w@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1810040427550.13517@namei.org>
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Date:   Wed, 3 Oct 2018 13:10:51 -0700
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jJmVR4Wsdti=aFaDhCBaxsVu1KTJOdsJOtFvZOV1ZhdvQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH security-next v4 23/32] selinux: Remove boot parameter
To:     James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>
Cc:     John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com>,
        Jordan Glover <Golden_Miller83@protonmail.ch>,
        Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>,
        Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>,
        "Schaufler, Casey" <casey.schaufler@intel.com>,
        linux-security-module <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 11:28 AM, James Morris <jmorris@namei.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Oct 2018, Kees Cook wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 11:17 AM, James Morris <jmorris@namei.org> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2 Oct 2018, John Johansen wrote:
>> >> To me a list like
>> >>   lsm.enable=X,Y,Z
>> >
>> > What about even simpler:
>> >
>> > lsm=selinux,!apparmor,yama
>>
>> We're going to have lsm.order=, so I'd like to keep it with a dot
>> separator (this makes it more like module parameters, too). You want
>> to mix enable/disable in the same string? That implies you'd want
>> implicit enabling (i.e. it complements the builtin enabling), which is
>> opposite from what John wanted.
>>
>
> Why can't this be the order as well?

That was covered extensively in the earlier threads. It boils down to
making sure we do not create a pattern of leaving LSMs disabled by
default when they are added to the kernel. The v1 series used
security= like this:

+       security=       [SECURITY] An ordered comma-separated list of
+                       security modules to attempt to enable at boot. If
+                       this boot parameter is not specified, only the
+                       security modules asking for initialization will be
+                       enabled (see CONFIG_DEFAULT_SECURITY). Duplicate
+                       or invalid security modules will be ignored. The
+                       capability module is always loaded first, without
+                       regard to this parameter.

This meant booting "security=apparmor" would disable all the other
LSMs, which wasn't friendly at all. So "security=" was left alone (to
leave it to only select the "major" LSM: all major LSMs not matching
"security=" would be disabled). So I proposed "lsm.order=" to specify
the order things were going to be initialized in, but to avoid kernels
booting with newly added LSMs forced-off due to not being listed in
"lsm.order=", it had to have implicit fall-back for unlisted LSMs.
(i.e. anything missing from lsm.order would then follow their order in
CONFIG_LSM_ORDER, and anything missing there would fall back to
link-time ordering.) However, then the objection was raised that this
didn't provide a way to explicitly disable an LSM. So I proposed
lsm.enable/disable, and John argued for CONFIG_LSM_ENABLE over
CONFIG_LSM_DISABLE.

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security