From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
To: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
paul@paul-moore.com, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
Cc: jmorris@namei.org, serge@hallyn.com, keescook@chromium.org,
john.johansen@canonical.com, penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp,
stephen.smalley.work@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
mic@digikod.net, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v39 01/42] integrity: disassociate ima_filter_rule from security_audit_rule
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 09:58:27 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bef69e74a011c8d4d084e9a60d3030a89402fcc3.camel@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20231215221636.105680-2-casey@schaufler-ca.com>
On Fri, 2023-12-15 at 14:15 -0800, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> Create real functions for the ima_filter_rule interfaces.
> These replace #defines that obscure the reuse of audit
> interfaces. The new functions are put in security.c because
> they use security module registered hooks that we don't
> want exported.
>
> Acked-by: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
> Reviewed-by: John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com>
> Signed-off-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
> To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
> Cc: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org
> ---
> include/linux/security.h | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> security/integrity/ima/ima.h | 26 --------------------------
> security/security.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
> 3 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/security.h b/include/linux/security.h
> index 750130a7b9dd..4790508818ee 100644
> --- a/include/linux/security.h
> +++ b/include/linux/security.h
> @@ -2009,6 +2009,30 @@ static inline void security_audit_rule_free(void *lsmrule)
> #endif /* CONFIG_SECURITY */
> #endif /* CONFIG_AUDIT */
>
> +#if defined(CONFIG_IMA_LSM_RULES) && defined(CONFIG_SECURITY)
> +int ima_filter_rule_init(u32 field, u32 op, char *rulestr, void **lsmrule);
> +int ima_filter_rule_match(u32 secid, u32 field, u32 op, void *lsmrule);
> +void ima_filter_rule_free(void *lsmrule);
> +
> +#else
> +
> +static inline int ima_filter_rule_init(u32 field, u32 op, char *rulestr,
> + void **lsmrule)
> +{
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static inline int ima_filter_rule_match(u32 secid, u32 field, u32 op,
> + void *lsmrule)
> +{
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
scripts/checkpatch.pl complains about the formatting of "void *lsmrule".
> +static inline void ima_filter_rule_free(void *lsmrule)
> +{ }
> +
> +#endif /* defined(CONFIG_IMA_LSM_RULES) && defined(CONFIG_SECURITY) */
> +
> #ifdef CONFIG_SECURITYFS
>
> extern struct dentry *securityfs_create_file(const char *name, umode_t mode,
> diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima.h b/security/integrity/ima/ima.h
> index c29db699c996..560d6104de72 100644
> --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima.h
> +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima.h
> @@ -420,32 +420,6 @@ static inline void ima_free_modsig(struct modsig *modsig)
> }
> #endif /* CONFIG_IMA_APPRAISE_MODSIG */
>
> -/* LSM based policy rules require audit */
> -#ifdef CONFIG_IMA_LSM_RULES
> -
> -#define ima_filter_rule_init security_audit_rule_init
> -#define ima_filter_rule_free security_audit_rule_free
> -#define ima_filter_rule_match security_audit_rule_match
> -
> -#else
> -
> -static inline int ima_filter_rule_init(u32 field, u32 op, char *rulestr,
> - void **lsmrule)
> -{
> - return -EINVAL;
> -}
> -
> -static inline void ima_filter_rule_free(void *lsmrule)
> -{
> -}
> -
> -static inline int ima_filter_rule_match(u32 secid, u32 field, u32 op,
> - void *lsmrule)
> -{
> - return -EINVAL;
> -}
> -#endif /* CONFIG_IMA_LSM_RULES */
> -
> #ifdef CONFIG_IMA_READ_POLICY
> #define POLICY_FILE_FLAGS (S_IWUSR | S_IRUSR)
> #else
> diff --git a/security/security.c b/security/security.c
> index d7b15ea67c3f..8e5379a76369 100644
> --- a/security/security.c
> +++ b/security/security.c
> @@ -5350,6 +5350,27 @@ int security_audit_rule_match(u32 secid, u32 field, u32 op, void *lsmrule)
> }
> #endif /* CONFIG_AUDIT */
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_IMA_LSM_RULES
> +/*
> + * The integrity subsystem uses the same hooks as
> + * the audit subsystem.
- No reason for the comment to be split.
- Please note that these calls are limited to IMA, not the integrity subsystem
in general.
> + */
> +int ima_filter_rule_init(u32 field, u32 op, char *rulestr, void **lsmrule)
> +{
> + return call_int_hook(audit_rule_init, 0, field, op, rulestr, lsmrule);
> +}
> +
> +void ima_filter_rule_free(void *lsmrule)
> +{
> + call_void_hook(audit_rule_free, lsmrule);
> +}
> +
> +int ima_filter_rule_match(u32 secid, u32 field, u32 op, void *lsmrule)
> +{
> + return call_int_hook(audit_rule_match, 0, secid, field, op, lsmrule);
> +}
> +#endif /* CONFIG_IMA_LSM_RULES */
In terms of function naming, refer to thread with Roberto's response.
> +
> #ifdef CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL
> /**
> * security_bpf() - Check if the bpf syscall operation is allowed
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-06-24 13:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 72+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20231215221636.105680-1-casey.ref@schaufler-ca.com>
2023-12-15 22:15 ` [PATCH v39 00/42] LSM: General module stacking Casey Schaufler
2023-12-15 22:15 ` [PATCH v39 01/42] integrity: disassociate ima_filter_rule from security_audit_rule Casey Schaufler
2024-03-06 9:54 ` Roberto Sassu
2024-03-06 16:56 ` Casey Schaufler
2024-03-07 7:56 ` Roberto Sassu
2024-06-21 16:50 ` Paul Moore
2024-06-21 19:07 ` Paul Moore
2024-06-21 20:23 ` Mimi Zohar
2024-06-21 20:34 ` Roberto Sassu
2024-06-21 21:19 ` Paul Moore
2024-06-24 8:45 ` Roberto Sassu
2024-06-24 13:57 ` Mimi Zohar
2024-06-24 22:03 ` Paul Moore
2024-06-24 22:19 ` Casey Schaufler
2024-06-24 23:05 ` Paul Moore
2024-06-24 23:16 ` Casey Schaufler
2024-06-24 23:06 ` Mimi Zohar
2024-06-21 21:18 ` Paul Moore
2024-06-24 13:58 ` Mimi Zohar [this message]
2023-12-15 22:15 ` [PATCH v39 02/42] SM: Infrastructure management of the sock security Casey Schaufler
2024-06-21 20:31 ` Paul Moore
2024-06-21 22:24 ` Casey Schaufler
2024-06-23 19:57 ` Paul Moore
2024-06-24 22:07 ` Paul Moore
2023-12-15 22:15 ` [PATCH v39 03/42] LSM: Add the lsmblob data structure Casey Schaufler
2023-12-15 22:15 ` [PATCH v39 04/42] IMA: avoid label collisions with stacked LSMs Casey Schaufler
2024-03-06 10:09 ` Roberto Sassu
2024-03-06 17:04 ` Casey Schaufler
2024-03-07 8:15 ` Roberto Sassu
2024-03-07 17:36 ` Casey Schaufler
2023-12-15 22:15 ` [PATCH v39 05/42] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_audit_rule_match Casey Schaufler
2023-12-15 22:16 ` [PATCH v39 06/42] LSM: Add lsmblob_to_secctx hook Casey Schaufler
2023-12-15 22:16 ` [PATCH v39 07/42] Audit: maintain an lsmblob in audit_context Casey Schaufler
2023-12-15 22:16 ` [PATCH v39 08/42] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_ipc_getsecid Casey Schaufler
2023-12-15 22:16 ` [PATCH v39 09/42] Audit: Update shutdown LSM data Casey Schaufler
2023-12-15 22:16 ` [PATCH v39 10/42] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_current_getsecid Casey Schaufler
2023-12-15 22:16 ` [PATCH v39 11/42] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_inode_getsecid Casey Schaufler
2023-12-15 22:16 ` [PATCH v39 12/42] Audit: use an lsmblob in audit_names Casey Schaufler
2023-12-15 22:16 ` [PATCH v39 13/42] LSM: Create new security_cred_getlsmblob LSM hook Casey Schaufler
2023-12-15 22:16 ` [PATCH v39 14/42] Audit: Change context data from secid to lsmblob Casey Schaufler
2023-12-15 22:16 ` [PATCH v39 15/42] Netlabel: Use lsmblob for audit data Casey Schaufler
2023-12-15 22:16 ` [PATCH v39 16/42] LSM: Ensure the correct LSM context releaser Casey Schaufler
2023-12-15 22:16 ` [PATCH v39 17/42] LSM: Use lsmcontext in security_secid_to_secctx Casey Schaufler
2023-12-15 22:16 ` [PATCH v39 18/42] LSM: Use lsmcontext in security_lsmblob_to_secctx Casey Schaufler
2023-12-15 22:16 ` [PATCH v39 19/42] LSM: Use lsmcontext in security_inode_getsecctx Casey Schaufler
2023-12-15 22:16 ` [PATCH v39 20/42] LSM: Use lsmcontext in security_dentry_init_security Casey Schaufler
2023-12-18 2:50 ` Xiubo Li
2023-12-18 16:55 ` Casey Schaufler
2023-12-15 22:16 ` [PATCH v39 21/42] LSM: security_lsmblob_to_secctx module selection Casey Schaufler
2023-12-15 22:16 ` [PATCH v39 22/42] Audit: Create audit_stamp structure Casey Schaufler
2023-12-15 22:16 ` [PATCH v39 23/42] Audit: Allow multiple records in an audit_buffer Casey Schaufler
2023-12-15 22:16 ` [PATCH v39 24/42] Audit: Add record for multiple task security contexts Casey Schaufler
2023-12-15 22:16 ` [PATCH v39 25/42] audit: multiple subject lsm values for netlabel Casey Schaufler
2023-12-15 22:16 ` [PATCH v39 26/42] Audit: Add record for multiple object contexts Casey Schaufler
2023-12-15 22:16 ` [PATCH v39 27/42] LSM: Remove unused lsmcontext_init() Casey Schaufler
2023-12-15 22:16 ` [PATCH v39 28/42] LSM: Improve logic in security_getprocattr Casey Schaufler
2023-12-15 22:16 ` [PATCH v39 29/42] LSM: secctx provider check on release Casey Schaufler
2023-12-15 22:16 ` [PATCH v39 30/42] LSM: Single calls in socket_getpeersec hooks Casey Schaufler
2023-12-15 22:16 ` [PATCH v39 31/42] LSM: Exclusive secmark usage Casey Schaufler
2023-12-15 22:16 ` [PATCH v39 32/42] LSM: Identify which LSM handles the context string Casey Schaufler
2023-12-15 22:16 ` [PATCH v39 33/42] AppArmor: Remove the exclusive flag Casey Schaufler
2023-12-15 22:16 ` [PATCH v39 34/42] LSM: Add mount opts blob size tracking Casey Schaufler
2023-12-15 22:16 ` [PATCH v39 35/42] LSM: allocate mnt_opts blobs instead of module specific data Casey Schaufler
2023-12-15 22:16 ` [PATCH v39 36/42] LSM: Infrastructure management of the key security blob Casey Schaufler
2023-12-15 22:16 ` [PATCH v39 37/42] LSM: Infrastructure management of the mnt_opts " Casey Schaufler
2023-12-15 22:16 ` [PATCH v39 38/42] LSM: Correct handling of ENOSYS in inode_setxattr Casey Schaufler
2023-12-15 22:16 ` [PATCH v39 39/42] LSM: Remove lsmblob scaffolding Casey Schaufler
2023-12-15 22:16 ` [PATCH v39 40/42] LSM: Allow reservation of netlabel Casey Schaufler
2023-12-15 22:16 ` [PATCH v39 41/42] LSM: restrict security_cred_getsecid() to a single LSM Casey Schaufler
2023-12-15 22:16 ` [PATCH v39 42/42] Smack: Remove LSM_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE Casey Schaufler
2023-12-18 2:18 ` Leesoo Ahn
2024-02-02 0:24 ` [PATCH v39 00/42] LSM: General module stacking John Johansen
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:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=bef69e74a011c8d4d084e9a60d3030a89402fcc3.camel@linux.ibm.com \
--to=zohar@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=casey@schaufler-ca.com \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=john.johansen@canonical.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mic@digikod.net \
--cc=paul@paul-moore.com \
--cc=penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp \
--cc=serge@hallyn.com \
--cc=stephen.smalley.work@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®