On 9/22/2024 8:08 AM, Alice Ryhl wrote: > On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 5:40 PM Casey Schaufler <casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 9/15/2024 2:07 PM, Alice Ryhl wrote: >>> On Sun, Sep 15, 2024 at 10:58 PM Kees Cook <kees@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> On Sun, Sep 15, 2024 at 02:31:31PM +0000, Alice Ryhl wrote: >>>>> Add an abstraction for viewing the string representation of a security >>>>> context. >>>> Hm, this may collide with "LSM: Move away from secids" is going to happen. >>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240830003411.16818-1-casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ >>>> >>>> This series is not yet landed, but in the future, the API changes should >>>> be something like this, though the "lsmblob" name is likely to change to >>>> "lsmprop"? >>>> security_cred_getsecid() -> security_cred_getlsmblob() >>>> security_secid_to_secctx() -> security_lsmblob_to_secctx() >> The referenced patch set does not change security_cred_getsecid() >> nor remove security_secid_to_secctx(). There remain networking interfaces >> that are unlikely to ever be allowed to move away from secids. It will >> be necessary to either retain some of the secid interfaces or introduce >> scaffolding around the lsm_prop structure. >> >> Binder is currently only supported in SELinux, so this isn't a real issue >> today. The BPF LSM could conceivably support binder, but only in cases where >> SELinux isn't enabled. Should there be additional LSMs that support binder >> the hooks would have to be changed to use lsm_prop interfaces, but I have >> not included that *yet*. >> >>> Thanks for the heads up. I'll make sure to look into how this >>> interacts with those changes. >> There will be a follow on patch set as well that replaces the LSMs use >> of string/length pairs with a structure. This becomes necessary in cases >> where more than one active LSM uses secids and security contexts. This >> will affect binder. > When are these things expected to land? I would like them to land in 6.14, but history would lead me to think it will be later than that. A lot will depend on how well the large set of LSM changes that went into 6.12 are received. > If this patch series gets > merged in the same kernel cycle as those changes, it'll probably need > special handling. Yes, this is the fundamental downside of the tree merge development model. > Alice
