LKML Archive on
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Casey Schaufler <>
Cc: Mimi Zohar <>,
	David Howells <>,
	Matthew Garrett <>,,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] kexec: call LSM hook for kexec_load syscall
Date: Thu, 03 May 2018 11:42:09 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <> (Casey Schaufler's message of "Thu, 3 May 2018 09:05:22 -0700")

Casey Schaufler <> writes:

> On 5/3/2018 8:51 AM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Mimi Zohar <> writes:
>>> On Wed, 2018-05-02 at 09:45 -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>>> Mimi Zohar <> writes:
>>>>> Allow LSMs and IMA to differentiate between the kexec_load and
>>>>> kexec_file_load syscalls by adding an "unnecessary" call to
>>>>> security_kernel_read_file() in kexec_load.  This would be similar to the
>>>>> existing init_module syscall calling security_kernel_read_file().
>>>> Given the reasonable desire to load a policy that ensures everything
>>>> has a signature I don't have fundamental objections.
>>>> security_kernel_read_file as a hook seems an odd choice.  At the very
>>>> least it has a bad name because there is no file reading going on here.
>>>> I am concerned that I don't see CONFIG_KEXEC_VERIFY_SIG being tested
>>>> anywhere.  Which means I could have a kernel compiled without that and I
>>>> would be allowed to use kexec_file_load without signature checking.
>>>> While kexec_load would be denied.
>>>> Am I missing something here?
>>> The kexec_file_load() calls kernel_read_file_from_fd(), which in turn
>>> calls security_kernel_read_file().  So kexec_file_load and kexec_load
>>> syscall would be using the same method for enforcing signature
>>> verification.
>> Having looked at your patches and the kernel a little more I think
>> this should be a separate security hook that does not take a file
>> parameter.
>> Right now every other security module assumes !file is init_module.
>> So I think this change has the potential to confuse other security
>> modules, with the result of unintended policy being applied.
>> So just for good security module hygeine I think this needs a dedicated
>> kexec_load security hook.
> I would rather see the existing modules updated than a new
> hook added. Too many hooks spoil the broth. Two hooks with
> trivial differences just add to the clutter and make it harder
> for non-lsm developers to figure out what to use in their
> code.

These are not non-trivial differences.  There is absolutely nothing
file related about kexec_load.  Nor for init_module for that matter.

If something is called security_kernel_read_file I think it is wholly
appropriate for code that processes such a hook to assume file is

When you have to dance a jig (which is what I see the security modules
doing) to figure out who is calling a lsm hook for what purpose I think
it is a maintenance problem waiting to happen and that the hook is badly

At this point I don't care what the lsm's do with the hooks but the
hooks need to make sense for people outside of the lsm's and something
about reading a file in a syscall that doesn't read files is complete
and utter nonsense.


  reply	other threads:[~2018-05-03 16:42 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-04-12 22:41 [PATCH 0/3] kexec: limit " Mimi Zohar
2018-04-12 22:41 ` [PATCH 1/3] ima: based on the "secure_boot" policy limit syscalls Mimi Zohar
2018-04-12 22:41 ` [PATCH 2/3] kexec: call LSM hook for kexec_load syscall Mimi Zohar
2018-05-02 14:45   ` Eric W. Biederman
2018-05-02 15:45     ` Mimi Zohar
2018-05-03 15:51       ` Eric W. Biederman
2018-05-03 16:05         ` Casey Schaufler
2018-05-03 16:42           ` Eric W. Biederman [this message]
2018-05-03 21:06             ` Mimi Zohar
2018-05-03 21:36               ` Eric W. Biederman
2018-04-12 22:41 ` [PATCH 3/3] ima: based on policy require signed kexec kernel images Mimi Zohar
2018-05-03 20:13 ` [PATCH 0/3] kexec: limit kexec_load syscall Eric W. Biederman
2018-05-03 20:39   ` Matthew Garrett
2018-05-03 21:58     ` Eric W. Biederman
2018-05-03 22:51       ` Matthew Garrett
2018-05-03 21:31   ` Mimi Zohar
2018-05-03 21:38     ` Eric W. Biederman
2018-05-03 21:57       ` Mimi Zohar
2018-05-03 23:03         ` Eric W. Biederman
2018-05-04  2:29           ` Mimi Zohar
2018-05-11  1:36 Mimi Zohar
2018-05-11  1:36 ` [PATCH 2/3] kexec: call LSM hook for " Mimi Zohar

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH 2/3] kexec: call LSM hook for kexec_load syscall' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).