[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <16baa1f4-972d-c781-2d57-508296a83bfb@schaufler-ca.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2021 10:30:32 -0800
From: Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Alexander Popov <alex.popov@...ux.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>, Andrew Morton
<akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
Maciej Rozycki <macro@...am.me.uk>, Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>, Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>, Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>, Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
Wei Liu <wl@....org>, John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@...abs.ru>,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>, Jann Horn
<jannh@...gle.com>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>, Laura Abbott <labbott@...nel.org>,
David S Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Andrew Scull <ascull@...gle.com>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>,
Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@...gle.com>,
Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>, Wang Qing <wangqing@...o.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>,
Andrew Klychkov <andrew.a.klychkov@...il.com>,
Mathieu Chouquet-Stringer <me@...hieu.digital>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, Stephen Kitt <steve@....org>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>, Bjorn Andersson
<bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org,
"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, notify@...nel.org,
main@...ts.elisa.tech, safety-architecture@...ts.elisa.tech,
devel@...ts.elisa.tech, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Introduce the pkill_on_warn parameter
On 11/18/2021 9:32 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 11:00:23AM -0800, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>> On 11/16/2021 10:41 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 12:12:16PM +0300, Alexander Popov wrote:
>>>> What if the Linux kernel had a LSM module responsible for error handling policy?
>>>> That would require adding LSM hooks to BUG*(), WARN*(), KERN_EMERG, etc.
>>>> In such LSM policy we can decide immediately how to react on the kernel error.
>>>> We can even decide depending on the subsystem and things like that.
>>> That would solve the "atomicity" issue the WARN tracepoint solution has,
>>> and it would allow for very flexible userspace policy.
>>>
>>> I actually wonder if the existing panic_on_* sites should serve as a
>>> guide for where to put the hooks. The current sysctls could be replaced
>>> by the hooks and a simple LSM.
>> Do you really want to make error handling a "security" issue?
>> If you add security_bug(), security_warn_on() and the like
>> you're begging that they be included in SELinux (AppArmor) policy.
>> BPF, too, come to think of it. Is that what you want?
> Yeah, that is what I was thinking. This would give the LSM a view into
> kernel state, which seems a reasonable thing to do. If system integrity
> is compromised, an LSM may want to stop trusting things.
How are you planning to communicate the security relevance of the
warning to the LSM? I don't think that __FILE__, __LINE__ or __func__
is great information to base security policy on. Nor is a backtrace.
> A dedicated error-handling LSM could be added for those hooks that
> implemented the existing default panic_on_* sysctls, and could expand on
> that logic for other actions.
I can see having an interface like LSM for choosing a bug/warn policy.
I worry about expanding the LSM hook list for a case where I would
hope no existing LSM would use them, and the new LSM doesn't use any
of the existing hooks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
