Re: [PATCH 1/9] integrity: Prepare for having "ima" and "evm" available in "integrity" LSM

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On 14/10/2022 00:36, Kees Cook wrote:
Move "integrity" LSM to the end of the Kconfig list and prepare for
having ima and evm LSM initialization called from the top-level
"integrity" LSM.

Cc: Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: James Morris <jmorris@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Mimi Zohar <zohar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Dmitry Kasatkin <dmitry.kasatkin@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Mickaël Salaün" <mic@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: linux-security-module@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: linux-integrity@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
  security/Kconfig                  | 10 +++++-----
  security/integrity/evm/evm_main.c |  4 ++++
  security/integrity/iint.c         | 17 +++++++++++++----
  security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c |  4 ++++
  security/integrity/integrity.h    |  6 ++++++
  5 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/security/Kconfig b/security/Kconfig
index e6db09a779b7..d472e87a2fc4 100644
--- a/security/Kconfig
+++ b/security/Kconfig
@@ -246,11 +246,11 @@ endchoice
config LSM
  	string "Ordered list of enabled LSMs"
-	default "landlock,lockdown,yama,loadpin,safesetid,integrity,smack,selinux,tomoyo,apparmor,bpf" if DEFAULT_SECURITY_SMACK
-	default "landlock,lockdown,yama,loadpin,safesetid,integrity,apparmor,selinux,smack,tomoyo,bpf" if DEFAULT_SECURITY_APPARMOR
-	default "landlock,lockdown,yama,loadpin,safesetid,integrity,tomoyo,bpf" if DEFAULT_SECURITY_TOMOYO
-	default "landlock,lockdown,yama,loadpin,safesetid,integrity,bpf" if DEFAULT_SECURITY_DAC
-	default "landlock,lockdown,yama,loadpin,safesetid,integrity,selinux,smack,tomoyo,apparmor,bpf"
+	default "landlock,lockdown,yama,loadpin,safesetid,smack,selinux,tomoyo,apparmor,bpf,integrity" if DEFAULT_SECURITY_SMACK
+	default "landlock,lockdown,yama,loadpin,safesetid,apparmor,selinux,smack,tomoyo,bpf,integrity" if DEFAULT_SECURITY_APPARMOR
+	default "landlock,lockdown,yama,loadpin,safesetid,tomoyo,bpf,integrity" if DEFAULT_SECURITY_TOMOYO
+	default "landlock,lockdown,yama,loadpin,safesetid,bpf,integrity" if DEFAULT_SECURITY_DAC
+	default "landlock,lockdown,yama,loadpin,safesetid,selinux,smack,tomoyo,apparmor,bpf,integrity"

This is not backward compatible, but can easily be fixed thanks to DEFINE_LSM().order

Side node: I proposed an alternative to that but it was Nacked: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20210222150608.808146-1-mic@xxxxxxxxxxx/


  	help
  	  A comma-separated list of LSMs, in initialization order.
  	  Any LSMs left off this list will be ignored. This can be
diff --git a/security/integrity/evm/evm_main.c b/security/integrity/evm/evm_main.c
index 2e6fb6e2ffd2..1ef965089417 100644
--- a/security/integrity/evm/evm_main.c
+++ b/security/integrity/evm/evm_main.c
@@ -904,3 +904,7 @@ static int __init init_evm(void)
  }
late_initcall(init_evm);
+
+void __init integrity_lsm_evm_init(void)
+{
+}
diff --git a/security/integrity/iint.c b/security/integrity/iint.c
index 8638976f7990..4f322324449d 100644
--- a/security/integrity/iint.c
+++ b/security/integrity/iint.c
@@ -18,7 +18,6 @@
  #include <linux/file.h>
  #include <linux/uaccess.h>
  #include <linux/security.h>
-#include <linux/lsm_hooks.h>
  #include "integrity.h"
static struct rb_root integrity_iint_tree = RB_ROOT;
@@ -172,19 +171,29 @@ static void init_once(void *foo)
  	mutex_init(&iint->mutex);
  }
-static int __init integrity_iintcache_init(void)
+void __init integrity_add_lsm_hooks(struct security_hook_list *hooks,
+				    int count)
+{
+	security_add_hooks(hooks, count, "integrity");
+}
+
+static int __init integrity_lsm_init(void)
  {
  	iint_cache =
  	    kmem_cache_create("iint_cache", sizeof(struct integrity_iint_cache),
  			      0, SLAB_PANIC, init_once);
+
+	integrity_lsm_ima_init();
+	integrity_lsm_evm_init();
+
  	return 0;
  }
+
  DEFINE_LSM(integrity) = {
  	.name = "integrity",
-	.init = integrity_iintcache_init,
+	.init = integrity_lsm_init,

For backward compatibility, there should be an ".order = LSM_ORDER_FIRST," here.



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux Kernel Hardening]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux