Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200613024130.3356-1-nramas@linux.microsoft.com>
 <20200613024130.3356-5-nramas@linux.microsoft.com> <CAEjxPJ49UaZc9pc-+VN8Cx8rcdrjD6NMoLOO_zqENezobmfwVA@mail.gmail.com>
 <a9a20aa5-963e-5f49-9391-0673fdda378e@linux.microsoft.com>
In-Reply-To: <a9a20aa5-963e-5f49-9391-0673fdda378e@linux.microsoft.com>
From:   Stephen Smalley <stephen.smalley.work@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 15 Jun 2020 16:31:59 -0400
Message-ID: <CAEjxPJ4nD-3cNQHp8wjdL=_k3opjyU+zc9xCPZkOjkTxDN6g9A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] LSM: Define SELinux function to measure security state
To:     Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@linux.microsoft.com>
Cc:     Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>,
        Stephen Smalley <stephen.smalley@gmail.com>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
        James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
        linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
        LSM List <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 12:45 PM Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
<nramas@linux.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/15/20 4:57 AM, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> > I think I mentioned this on a previous version of these patches, but I
> > would recommend including more than just the enabled and enforcing
> > states in your measurement.  Other low-hanging fruit would be the
> > other selinux_state booleans (checkreqprot, initialized,
> > policycap[0..__POLICYDB_CAPABILITY_MAX]).  Going a bit further one
> > could take a hash of the loaded policy by using security_read_policy()
> > and then computing a hash using whatever hash ima prefers over the
> > returned data,len pair.  You likely also need to think about how to
> > allow future extensibility of the state in a backward-compatible
> > manner, so that future additions do not immediately break systems
> > relying on older measurements.
> >
>
> Sure - I will address this one in the next update.

Please add selinux list to the cc for future versions too.