On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 7:03 AM, Mimi Zohar <zohar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 2018-05-29 at 14:01 -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote: >> Instead of adding the security_kernel_read_file LSM hook - or defining a >> wrapper for security_kernel_read_file LSM hook and adding it, or >> renaming the existing hook to security_kernel_read_data() and adding it >> - in places where the kernel isn't reading a file, this version of the >> patch set defines a new LSM hook named security_kernel_load_data(). >> >> The new LSM hook does not replace the existing security_kernel_read_file >> LSM hook, which is still needed, but defines a new LSM hook allowing >> LSMs and IMA-appraisal the opportunity to fail loading userspace >> provided file/data. >> >> The only difference between the two LSM hooks is the LSM hook name and a >> file descriptor. Whether this is cause enough for requiring a new LSM >> hook, is left to the security community. > > Paul does not have a preference as to adding a new LSM hook or calling > the existing hook. Either way is fine, as long as both the new and > existing hooks call the existing function. > > Casey didn't like the idea of a wrapper. > James suggested renaming the LSM hook. > > The maintainers for the callers of the LSM hook prefer a meaningful > LSM hook name. The "null" argument is not as much of a concern. Only > Eric seems to be asking for a separate, new LSM hook, without the > "null" argument. > > Unless someone really objects, to accommodate Eric we'll define a new > LSM hook named security_kernel_load_data. Eric, are you planning on > Ack'ing patches 1 & 2? I'm sorry I'm late to review this series. Reading through what you have, it seems like the existing hook is fine. If the name has slipped, we can rename it, but I think adding another hook for the same logical action (loading something into the kernel) is confusing. It seems that only patches needed are 2 & 4 (new hook callsites), 5, 6 & 7 (IMA coverage and policy). 1 and 8 seem needless to me. If the objection is that isn't use on non-file objects, sure, rename it. But I don't see a _logical_ difference between the proposed and existing callsites. enum kernel_read_file_id covers the "type" already.... -Kees -- Kees Cook Pixel Security
