Subject: Re: [AppArmor 39/45] AppArmor: Profile loading and manipulation,
	pathname matching
From: Karl MacMillan <kmacmill@redhat.com>
To: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>
Cc: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
       Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>, Crispin Cowan <crispin@novell.com>,
       Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@suse.de>, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
       jjohansen@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <20070615214441.GB18039@kroah.com>
References: <1181931330.17547.866.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil>
	 <44036.5340.qm@web36611.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	 <20070615211414.GC7337@kroah.com>
	 <1181942915.9809.35.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	 <20070615214441.GB18039@kroah.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: Red Hat
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:24:10 -0400
Message-Id: <1181946250.9809.45.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2382
Lines: 59

On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 14:44 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 05:28:35PM -0400, Karl MacMillan wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 14:14 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 01:43:31PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Yup, I see that once you accept the notion that it is OK for a
> > > > file to be misslabeled for a bit and that having a fixxerupperd
> > > > is sufficient it all falls out.
> > > > 
> > > > My point is that there is a segment of the security community
> > > > that had not found this acceptable, even under the conditions
> > > > outlined. If it meets your needs, I say run with it.
> > > 
> > > If that segment feels that way, then I imagine AA would not meet their
> > > requirements today due to file handles and other ways of passing around
> > > open files, right?
> > > 
> > > So, would SELinux today (without this AA-like daemon) fit the
> > > requirements of this segment?
> > > 
> > 
> > Yes - RHEL 5 is going through CC evaluations for LSPP, CAPP, and RBAC
> > using the features of SELinux where appropriate.
> 
> Great, but is there the requirement in the CC stuff such that this type
> of "delayed re-label" that an AA-like daemon would need to do cause that
> model to not be able to be certified like your SELinux implementation
> is?
> 

There are two things:

1) relabeling (non-tranquility) is very problematic in general because
revocation is hard (and non-solved in Linux). So you would have to
address concerns about that.

2) Whether this would pass certification depends on a lot of factors
(like the specific requirements - CC is just a process not a single set
of requirements). I don't know enough to really guess.

More to the point, though, the requirements in those documents are
outdated at best. I don't think it is worth worrying over.

> As I'm guessing the default "label" for things like this already work
> properly for SELinux, I figure we should be safe, but I don't know those
> requirements at all.
> 

Probably not - you would likely want it to be a label that can't be read
or written by anything, only relabeled by the daemon.

Karl


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/