[PATCH v2 3/3] security: Add LSMs dependencies to CONFIG_LSM
masahiroy at kernel.org
Sun Feb 21 14:45:36 UTC 2021
On Sun, Feb 21, 2021 at 8:11 PM Mickaël Salaün <mic at digikod.net> wrote:
> On 21/02/2021 09:50, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 4:03 AM Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace at redhat.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 7:17 PM Mickaël Salaün <mic at digikod.net> wrote:
> >>> From: Mickaël Salaün <mic at linux.microsoft.com>
> >>> Thanks to the previous commit, this gives the opportunity to users, when
> >>> running make oldconfig, to update the list of enabled LSMs at boot time
> >>> if an LSM has just been enabled or disabled in the build. Moreover,
> >>> this list only makes sense if at least one LSM is enabled.
> >>> Cc: Casey Schaufler <casey at schaufler-ca.com>
> >>> Cc: James Morris <jmorris at namei.org>
> >>> Cc: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy at kernel.org>
> >>> Cc: Serge E. Hallyn <serge at hallyn.com>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Mickaël Salaün <mic at linux.microsoft.com>
> >>> Link: https://firstname.lastname@example.org
> >>> ---
> >>> Changes since v1:
> >>> * Add CONFIG_SECURITY as a dependency of CONFIG_LSM. This prevent an
> >>> error when building without any LSMs.
> >>> ---
> >>> security/Kconfig | 4 ++++
> >>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> >>> diff --git a/security/Kconfig b/security/Kconfig
> >>> index 7561f6f99f1d..addcc1c04701 100644
> >>> --- a/security/Kconfig
> >>> +++ b/security/Kconfig
> >>> @@ -277,6 +277,10 @@ endchoice
> >>> config LSM
> >>> string "Ordered list of enabled LSMs"
> >>> + depends on SECURITY || SECURITY_LOCKDOWN_LSM || SECURITY_YAMA || \
> >>> + SECURITY_LOADPIN || SECURITY_SAFESETID || INTEGRITY || \
> >>> + SECURITY_SELINUX || SECURITY_SMACK || SECURITY_TOMOYO || \
> >>> + SECURITY_APPARMOR || BPF_LSM
> >> This looks really awkward, since all of these already depend on
> >> SECURITY (if not, it's a bug)... I guarantee you that after some time
> >> someone will come, see that the weird boolean expression is equivalent
> >> to just SECURITY, and simplify it.
> > Currently, LSM does not depend on SECURITY.
> > So you can always define LSM irrespective of SECURITY,
> > which seems a bug.
> > So, I agree with adding 'depends on SECURITY'.
> > What he is trying to achieve in this series
> > seems wrong, of course.
> This may be wrong in the general case, but not for CONFIG_LSM.
> >> I assume the new mechanism wouldn't work as intended if there is just
> >> SECURITY? If not, then maybe you should rather specify this value
> >> dependency via some new field rather than abusing "depends on" (say,
> >> "value depends on"?). The fact that a seemingly innocent change to the
> >> config definition breaks your mechanism suggests that the design is
> >> flawed.
> Masahiro, what do you think about this suggested "value depends on"?
Of course, no.
See the help text in init/Kconfig:
This choice is there only for converting CONFIG_DEFAULT_SECURITY
in old kernel configs to CONFIG_LSM in new kernel configs. Don't
change this choice unless you are creating a fresh kernel config,
for this choice will be ignored after CONFIG_LSM has been set.
When CONFIG_LSM is already set in the .config,
this choice is just ignored.
So, oldconfig is working as the help message says.
If you think 2623c4fbe2ad1341ff2d1e12410d0afdae2490ca
is a pointless commit, you should ask Kees about it.
> >> I do think this would be a useful feature, but IMHO shouldn't be
> >> implemented like this.
> >>> default "lockdown,yama,loadpin,safesetid,integrity,smack,selinux,tomoyo,apparmor,bpf" if DEFAULT_SECURITY_SMACK
> >>> default "lockdown,yama,loadpin,safesetid,integrity,apparmor,selinux,smack,tomoyo,bpf" if DEFAULT_SECURITY_APPARMOR
> >>> default "lockdown,yama,loadpin,safesetid,integrity,tomoyo,bpf" if DEFAULT_SECURITY_TOMOYO
> >>> --
> >>> 2.30.0
> >> --
> >> Ondrej Mosnacek
> >> Software Engineer, Linux Security - SELinux kernel
> >> Red Hat, Inc.
More information about the Linux-security-module-archive