From: dwalsh@redhat.com (Daniel J Walsh) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 13:33:35 -0400 Subject: [refpolicy] In Fedora policy we have simplified the secure_mode_insmod In-Reply-To: <4E6F902F.8040407@tresys.com> References: <4E69F70D.8070801@redhat.com> <4E6A3719.60208@tresys.com> <4E6B33F6.9000000@redhat.com> <4E6F902F.8040407@tresys.com> Message-ID: <4E6F93EF.90904@redhat.com> To: refpolicy@oss.tresys.com List-Id: refpolicy.oss.tresys.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 09/13/2011 01:17 PM, Christopher J. PeBenito wrote: > On 09/10/11 05:55, Daniel J Walsh wrote: >> On 09/09/2011 11:56 AM, Christopher J. PeBenito wrote: >>> On 09/09/11 07:22, Daniel J Walsh wrote: >>>> Now this boolean controls sys_module, so we always transition >>>> but we can turn off the ability to insert modules into the >>>> kernel. >>>> >>>> This is much simpler then what we had before. >>>> >>>> If you like this I have a similar patch for >>>> secure_mode_loadpolicy >> >>> So with the current implementation, there are conditional >>> module loaders and unconditional module loaders. Do we really >>> want to make all module loading conditional? I'm fine with >>> that, but are there reasons to keep the current >>> conditional/unconditional behavior? If so we can still keep >>> that functionality, but implement it similar to this patch. >> >> I think this should be unconditional. If you want to shutoff >> loading kernel modules, this patch will do it even with >> unconfined programs running. It would be a pain to run with this >> system, but at least the users know that at a certain state of >> the machine no kernel modules can be loaded. > > Then there is an issue with the patch. Currently unconfined > domains have sys_module and its not controlled by the boolean. I'm > fine with stripping this permission from unconfined domains. > I think it makes sense. If we have the boolean it should work for targeted policy with or without the unconfined.pp installed. We also have setup secure_mode_policyload like this in Fedora 16. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk5vk+8ACgkQrlYvE4MpobNdZwCbBcoMH086q1JG3G6SfsRgfV9n PNAAn32Z0JLg7pPocCVTJZWyK5Xjq6yk =6lm+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----