Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 17 Oct 2022 22:55:30 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To:     Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Cc:     Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
        Nicolas Iooss <nicolas.iooss@m4x.org>,
        =?iso-8859-1?Q?Micka=EBl_Sala=FCn?= <mic@digikod.net>,
        James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
        "Serge E . Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
        =?iso-8859-1?Q?Micka=EBl_Sala=FCn?= <mic@linux.microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] security: Add CONFIG_LSM_AUTO to handle default
 LSM stack ordering
Message-ID: <202210172153.C65BF23D5E@keescook>
References: <20210222150608.808146-1-mic@digikod.net>
 <20210222150608.808146-2-mic@digikod.net>
 <51725b44-bc40-0205-8583-285d3b35b5ca@schaufler-ca.com>
 <ee461f8d-a02d-0782-8f31-691853a57f00@digikod.net>
 <7b67163a-9de1-313f-5b5a-8c720cef9b73@schaufler-ca.com>
 <CAJfZ7=n5FOxHXMLRrDQ3F-kDqbYngNoYKcz6_PWi1rPa0_8WpA@mail.gmail.com>
 <3b97e25b-303c-d732-3e5d-f1b1a446e090@schaufler-ca.com>
 <202210171111.21E3983165@keescook>
 <CAHC9VhTTKpesvjnc_233x+wG1BvXyup9nM4Dv2h1953zXAvU3A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHC9VhTTKpesvjnc_233x+wG1BvXyup9nM4Dv2h1953zXAvU3A@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 09:45:21PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> The code sorta cares about ordering, at least to the extent that the
> LSMs will behave differently depending on the ordering, e.g. a LSM

Right -- this is why I've been so uncomfortable with allowing
arbitrarily reordering of the LSM list from lsm=. There are orderings we
know work, and others may have undesirable side-effects. I'd much rather
the kernel be specific about the order.

> I personally would like to preserve the existing concept where "built"
> does *not* equate to "enabled" by default.

Yup, understood. I didn't think I was going to win over anyone on that
one, but figured I'd just point it out again. ;)

> > I *still* think there should be a way to leave ordering alone and have
> > separate enable/disable control.
> 
> My current opinion is that enabling a LSM and specifying its place in
> an ordered list are one in the same.  The way LSM stacking as
> currently done almost requires the ability to specify an order if an
> admin is trying to meet an security relevant operation visibility
> goal.

As in an admin wants to see selinux rejections instead of loadpin
rejections for a blocked module loading?

Hmmm. Is this a realistic need?

> We can have defaults, like we do know, but I'm in no hurry to remove
> the ability to allow admins to change the ordering at boot time.

My concern is with new LSMs vs the build system. A system builder will
be prompted for a new CONFIG_SECURITY_SHINY, but won't be prompted
about making changes to CONFIG_LSM to include it.

Even booting with "lsm.debug" isn't entirely helpful to helping someone
construct the "lsm=" option they actually want... I guess I can fix that
part, at least. :)

-- 
Kees Cook