Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v22 12/23] LSM: Specify which LSM to display | From | Casey Schaufler <> | Date | Fri, 6 Nov 2020 16:20:43 -0800 |
| |
On 11/5/2020 1:22 AM, Greg KH wrote: > On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 03:41:03PM -0800, Casey Schaufler wrote: >> Create a new entry "display" in the procfs attr directory for >> controlling which LSM security information is displayed for a >> process. A process can only read or write its own display value. >> >> The name of an active LSM that supplies hooks for >> human readable data may be written to "display" to set the >> value. The name of the LSM currently in use can be read from >> "display". At this point there can only be one LSM capable >> of display active. A helper function lsm_task_display() is >> provided to get the display slot for a task_struct. >> >> Setting the "display" requires that all security modules using >> setprocattr hooks allow the action. Each security module is >> responsible for defining its policy. >> >> AppArmor hook provided by John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com> >> SELinux hook provided by Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov> >> >> Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> >> Acked-by: Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov> >> Acked-by: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> >> Signed-off-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> >> Cc: linux-api@vger.kernel.org >> --- >> fs/proc/base.c | 1 + >> include/linux/lsm_hooks.h | 17 +++ >> security/apparmor/include/apparmor.h | 3 +- >> security/apparmor/lsm.c | 32 +++++ >> security/security.c | 169 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--- >> security/selinux/hooks.c | 11 ++ >> security/selinux/include/classmap.h | 2 +- >> security/smack/smack_lsm.c | 7 ++ >> 8 files changed, 223 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/fs/proc/base.c b/fs/proc/base.c >> index 0f707003dda5..7432f24f0132 100644 >> --- a/fs/proc/base.c >> +++ b/fs/proc/base.c >> @@ -2806,6 +2806,7 @@ static const struct pid_entry attr_dir_stuff[] = { >> ATTR(NULL, "fscreate", 0666), >> ATTR(NULL, "keycreate", 0666), >> ATTR(NULL, "sockcreate", 0666), >> + ATTR(NULL, "display", 0666), > That's a vague name, any chance it can be more descriptive?
Sure. How about lsm_display, or display_lsm? I wouldn't say that any of the files in /proc/*/attr have especially descriptive names, but that's hardly an excuse.
> And where is the Documentation/ABI/ entries for all of this, how does > userspace know what these things are, and how to use them?
I'll add ABI descriptions and move some of the lsm.rst up from where it is later in the patchset.
> > thanks, > > greg k-h
| |