WARNING in apparmor_secid_to_secctx
dvyukov at google.com
Fri Feb 1 10:11:26 UTC 2019
On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 11:09 AM Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov at google.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 1:23 AM Tetsuo Handa
> <penguin-kernel at i-love.sakura.ne.jp> wrote:
> > On 2019/01/30 23:45, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> > >> Dmitry, is it possible to update configs for linux-next.git , for
> > >> we want to test a big change in LSM which will go to Linux 5.1 ?
> > >>
> > >> TOMOYO security module (CONFIG_SECURITY_TOMOYO=y) can now coexist with
> > >> SELinux/Smack/AppArmor security modules, and SafeSetID security module
> > >> (CONFIG_SECURITY_SAFESETID=y) was added. Testing with these modules also
> > >> enabled might find something...
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > syzbot configs/cmdline args are stored here:
> > > https://github.com/google/syzkaller/tree/master/dashboard/config
> > >
> > > I've tried to update to the latest kernel, the diff is below.
> > > Few questions:
> > > 1. How are modules enabled now?
> > > We pass security=selinux of security=smack on command line. What do we
> > > need to pass now to enable several modules at the same time?
> > Removing security= parameter from kernel boot command line will do it.
> > security/apparmor/lsm.c: .flags = LSM_FLAG_LEGACY_MAJOR | LSM_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE,
> > security/selinux/hooks.c: .flags = LSM_FLAG_LEGACY_MAJOR | LSM_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE,
> > security/smack/smack_lsm.c: .flags = LSM_FLAG_LEGACY_MAJOR | LSM_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE,
> > security/tomoyo/tomoyo.c: .flags = LSM_FLAG_LEGACY_MAJOR,
> > security/security.c: if ((major->flags & LSM_FLAG_LEGACY_MAJOR) &&
> > But this means that, if same kernel config/cmdline are used between
> > linux-next.git and linux.git (etc.), syzbot will need to choose from
> > (a) stop sharing kernel cmdline between linux-next.git and linux.git (etc.)
> > or
> > (b) stop sharing kernel config between SELinux, Smack and AppArmor
> > or
> > (c) start testing after the LSM changes went to linux.git as Linux 5.1-rc1
> > . Is (a) or (b) possible? If this is a too much change, (c) will be OK.
> Thanks for the explanations.
> Here is the change that I've come up with:
> I've disabled CONFIG_SECURITY_TOMOYO_OMIT_USERSPACE_LOADER (it
> actually looked like omitting a user-space loader that I don't have is
> the right thing to do, but okay, it indeed does not with =y).
> For now I just enabled TOMOYO and SAFESETID.
> I see the problem with making both linux-next and upstream work. If we
> use a single config and lsm= cmdline argument, then on upstream all
> kernels will use the same module (they won't understand lsm=). But if
> we add security= then it will take precedence over lsm= on linux-next,
> so we won't get stacked modules.
> Let's go with (c) because I don't want an additional long-term maintenance cost.
> If I understand it correctly later we will need to replace:
Filed https://github.com/google/syzkaller/issues/973 to not forget about it.
More information about the Linux-security-module-archive