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: <20210517092006.803332-1-omosnace@redhat.com> <CAHC9VhTasra0tU=bKwVqAwLRYaC+hYakirRz0Mn5jbVMuDkwrA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFqZXNsh9njbFUNBugidbdiNqD3QbKzsw=KgNKSmW5hv-fD6tA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHC9VhQj_FvBqSGE+eZtbzvDoRAEbbo-6t_2E6MVuyiGA9N8Hw@mail.gmail.com> <CAFqZXNsVFv2yh5cXwWYXscYTAuoCKk4H-JbPAYzDbwKUzSDP3A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFqZXNsVFv2yh5cXwWYXscYTAuoCKk4H-JbPAYzDbwKUzSDP3A@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Date:   Tue, 8 Jun 2021 22:40:15 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhSNWK11f+u8v+MN0VHC3_4u+30jom80rwaat8OsJKo5fQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] lockdown,selinux: avoid bogus SELinux lockdown
 permission checks
To:     Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@redhat.com>
Cc:     Linux Security Module list 
        <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
        James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Stephen Smalley <stephen.smalley.work@gmail.com>,
        SElinux list <selinux@vger.kernel.org>,
        linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
        Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, network dev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 7:02 AM Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 7:46 PM Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> wrote:

...

> > It sounds an awful lot like the lockdown hook is in the wrong spot.
> > It sounds like it would be a lot better to relocate the hook than
> > remove it.
>
> I don't see how you would solve this by moving the hook. Where do you
> want to relocate it?

Wherever it makes sense.  Based on your comments it really sounded
like the hook was in a bad spot and since your approach in a lot of
this had been to remove or disable hooks I wanted to make sure that
relocating the hook was something you had considered.  Thankfully it
sounds like you have considered moving the hook - that's good.

> The main obstacle is that the message containing
> the SA dump is sent to consumers via a simple netlink broadcast, which
> doesn't provide a facility to redact the SA secret on a per-consumer
> basis. I can't see any way to make the checks meaningful for SELinux
> without a major overhaul of the broadcast logic.

Fair enough.

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com