Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.31 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.31;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230912205658.3432-1-casey.ref@schaufler-ca.com>
 <20230912205658.3432-1-casey@schaufler-ca.com> <CAHC9VhRcbp3iWQwL7FTUrcU1C3OsZ413Nbq+17oTwW7hZ7XvBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHC9VhSqY5+DR-jXprrftb1=CzDvhTh0Ep66A16RMd4L7W7TYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <ae39864947debbc7c460db478b8abe1c147b7d5c.camel@huaweicloud.com>
 <CAHC9VhRQ7xpeSX7b3VZfzQ15noJ8mgauNMuHWo_n3hMgsYMAfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <468436cf766732a3cfc55d07ad119a6ccdc815c1.camel@huaweicloud.com>
 <CAHC9VhTjHT-DGKu0=cZPVb=+kMwmbPdr8HiVWJq-yzaDiYk_SA@mail.gmail.com>
 <6f33144c850c40e9438a6de2cf3004e223508755.camel@huaweicloud.com>
 <2637d5294d4a7ae871f1b758f5a30234836e2463.camel@huaweicloud.com>
 <c896c8ed559d0075146070be232e449b6951eb99.camel@linux.ibm.com> <283bf52d-af6e-4d20-a5ba-d98511c2e530@huaweicloud.com>
In-Reply-To: <283bf52d-af6e-4d20-a5ba-d98511c2e530@huaweicloud.com>
From:   Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Date:   Wed, 18 Oct 2023 12:35:38 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhSiUgY1Dzy6LGOjPF6XQ3pVBiZ9LPdcQANNXZ9rj-WURw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 00/11] LSM: Three basic syscalls
To:     Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com>
Cc:     Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, jmorris@namei.org,
        serge@hallyn.com, keescook@chromium.org,
        john.johansen@canonical.com, penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp,
        stephen.smalley.work@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-api@vger.kernel.org, mic@digikod.net,
        linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 10:15=E2=80=AFAM Roberto Sassu
<roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com> wrote:
> On 10/18/2023 3:09 PM, Mimi Zohar wrote:

...

> > I agree with Roberto.  All three should be defined: LSM_ID_INTEGRITY,
> > LSM_ID_IMA, LSM_ID_EVM.
>
> I did not try yet, but the 'integrity' LSM does not need an LSM ID. With
> the last version adding hooks to 'ima' or 'evm', it should be sufficient
> to keep DEFINE_LSM(integrity) with the request to store a pointer in the
> security blob (even the init function can be a dummy function).

First off, this *really* should have been brought up way, way, *way*
before now.  This patchset has been discussed for months, and bringing
up concerns in the eleventh hour is borderline rude.

At least we haven't shipped this in a tagged release from Linus yet,
so there is that.

If you want to add a unique LSM ID for both IMA and EVM, I'm okay with
that, but if we do that I don't see the need for a dedicated ID for
"integrity".  Roberto, Mimi, one of you please send me a patch on top
of lsm/next-queue that updates the LSM ID to look like the following
(I believe EVM was added between AppArmor and Yama, yes?):

#define LSM_ID_UNDEF            0
#define LSM_ID_CAPABILITY       100
#define LSM_ID_SELINUX          101
#define LSM_ID_SMACK            102
#define LSM_ID_TOMOYO           103
#define LSM_ID_IMA              104
#define LSM_ID_APPARMOR         105
#define LSM_ID_EVM              106
#define LSM_ID_YAMA             107
#define LSM_ID_LOADPIN          108
#define LSM_ID_SAFESETID        109
#define LSM_ID_LOCKDOWN         110
#define LSM_ID_BPF              111
#define LSM_ID_LANDLOCK         112

... and also update the LSM registration code for IMA/EVM/etc. to do
the right thing.

Also, just to be clear, you should get this patch out ASAP.

--=20
paul-moore.com