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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] LSM: Allow syzbot to ignore security= parameter.
From:   Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
To:     Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc:     Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
        Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>,
        Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>,
        syzbot <syzbot+21016130b0580a9de3b5@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>,
        tyhicks@canonical.com, John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com>,
        James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
        Serge Hallyn <serge@hallyn.com>,
        syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com>,
        Jeffrey Vander Stoep <jeffv@google.com>,
        SELinux <selinux@vger.kernel.org>,
        Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au>,
        Laurent Bigonville <bigon@debian.org>,
        syzkaller <syzkaller@googlegroups.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
References: <8f48e1d0-c109-f8a9-ea94-9659b16cae49@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
 <0d23d1a5-d4af-debf-6b5f-aaaf698daaa8@schaufler-ca.com>
 <201902070230.x172UUG6002087@www262.sakura.ne.jp>
 <6def6199-0235-7c37-974c-baf731725606@schaufler-ca.com>
 <54c0ae39-f35c-bdcd-a217-8e62ef14e41b@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
 <54f15845-f256-f503-98ce-64a1b88a5f9f@schaufler-ca.com>
 <3a775445-c161-f104-ebf6-5fa1c9e9dac8@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
Message-ID: <0dd46edc-d3ee-75ca-5e50-fee70bd83ddb@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
Date:   Sat, 9 Feb 2019 10:40:17 +0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3a775445-c161-f104-ebf6-5fa1c9e9dac8@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-2022-jp
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 2019/02/09 9:28, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2019/02/09 1:23, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>> On 2/8/2019 2:52 AM, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>>> To help administrators easily understand what LSM modules are possibly enabled by default (which
>>> have to be fetched from e.g. /boot/config-`uname -r`)
>>
>> $ cat /sys/kernel/security/lsm
>>
> 
> /sys/kernel/security/lsm is list of "actually" enabled modules, isn't it?
> What I want is "possibly" enabled modules. Ubuntu would chose from either
> 
>   (a) explicitly add security=apparmor to kernel command line
> 
> or
> 
>   (b) explicitly remove tomoyo from CONFIG_LSM at kernel config
> 
> in order not to enable TOMOYO for those who want to enable only one of 
> SELinux/Smack/AppArmor. And for those who want to enable TOMOYO, I think
> that (b) (in other words, add
> 
>   lsm="modules listed in CONFIG_LSM" + ",tomoyo"
> 
> ) will retain compatibility when it becomes possible to enable more than
> one of SELinux/Smack/AppArmor at the same time.
> 
> If we can know "possibly" enabled modules from dmesg, users don't need to
> look at e.g. /boot/config-`uname -r`. It is not essential, but it's handy.
> 

Well, thinking again, specifying

lsm="modules listed in /sys/kernel/security/lsm" + ",tomoyo"

makes sense, for there is no need to care about disabled modules when
enabling TOMOYO. Therefore,

+	pr_info("Security Framework initializing: %s\n", order);
-	pr_info("Security Framework initializing\n");

won't be needed.

On 2019/02/09 6:33, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 8:24 AM Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote:
>> I added Kees to the CC list. Kees, what to you think about
>> ignoring security= if lsm= is specified? I'm ambivalent.
> 
> This was one of many earlier suggestions, and the consensus seemed to
> be "don't mix security= and lsm=". Why would anyone use both?
> 

Then, can we add this change?

+	if (chosen_lsm_order) {
+		if (chosen_major_lsm) {
+			pr_info("security= is ignored because of lsm=\n");
+			chosen_major_lsm = NULL;
+		}
+	}