Add documentation about stacker and its usage.
Signed-off-by: Serge Hallyn <[email protected]>
---
LSM-stacking.txt | 157 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 files changed, 157 insertions(+)
Index: linux-2.6.13-rc1/Documentation/LSM-stacking.txt
===================================================================
--- /dev/null 1970-01-01 00:00:00.000000000 +0000
+++ linux-2.6.13-rc1/Documentation/LSM-stacking.txt 2005-06-30 14:11:39.000000000 -0500
@@ -0,0 +1,157 @@
+------------
+LSM stacking
+------------
+
+This document consists of two parts. The first describes the stacker LSM.
+The second describes what is needed from an LSM in order to permit it to
+stack with other LSMs.
+
+--------------------------------------------------------
+stacker LSM - enable stacking multiple security modules.
+--------------------------------------------------------
+
+Stacker is compiled into the kernel. Find the "Stacker" option under
+the Security submenu, and say 'Y'. Now, any security modules which are
+loaded or compiled into the kernel will be managed by stacker.
+
+You may interact with stacker through its sysfs interface, located
+under /sys/stacker/. This consists of the following files:
+
+/sys/stacker/lockdown:
+Once you write to this file, you will no longer be able to load
+LSMs.
+
+/sys/stacker/list_modules:
+Reading this file will show which LSMs are being stacked.
+
+/sys/stacker/stop_responding:
+Unregisters the /sys/stacker directory, so that you can no longer
+interact with stacker.
+
+/sys/stacker/unload:
+Disables the specified module. The module will actually still be
+loaded, but will no longer be asked to mediate accesses or update
+security information. It will still be consulted on kernel object
+deletions. Please see further down why.
+
+---------------------------------------------
+Readying an LSM for stacking with other LSMs.
+---------------------------------------------
+
+LSM stacking is not a simple matter. You must consider the behavior of
+all stacked LSMs very carefully, as well as certain subtle effects of
+the LSM implementation. Please do not try to stack arbitrary modules!
+For instance, while SELinux and cap-stack should always be used
+together, SELinux cannot be combined with the original capability
+module. The reason for this is that capability enforces that
+a process must have CAP_SYS_ADMIN when writing "security.*" extended
+attributes. However selinux requires that non-CAP_SYS_ADMIN processes
+be able to write security.selinux attributes, instead enforcing its
+own permission check. More subtle interactions are certainly
+imaginable, such as a first security module updating state on a kernel
+object such that a second security module denies or allows the action
+when it otherwise would not have.
+
+If you have any questions about the proper or actual behavior of
+modules, whether existing or ones to be written by yourself, a good
+place to engage in discussion is the lsm mailing list,
[email protected]. Information about the mailing list can
+be found at lsm.immunix.org.
+
+For performance reasons, stacker currently does not permit unloading
+of stacked modules. They may be disabled while loaded by using the
+/sys/stacker/unload file. Stacker attempts to prevent the unloads by
+incrementing the usage count on the module's struct security_operations.
+
+If your module will be annotating security information to kernel
+objects, then you should use the provided API. The functions intended
+for use by modules are defined in include/linux/security.h. A
+good example of a user of these functions is the SELinux module. The
+following describes the API usage.
+
+Assume you wish to annotate an instance of the following struct to the
+inode_struct:
+
+struct my_security_info {
+ int a;
+ struct list_head some_list;
+ spinlock_t lock;
+};
+
+At the top of the struct, you must add a struct security_list lsm_list,
+as follows:
+
+struct my_security_info {
++ struct security_list lsm_list;
+ int count;
+ struct list_head some_list;
+ spinlock_t lock;
+};
+
+This will add the information which the API will need to tell your
+information apart from that of other modules. You also need to define a
+unique ID to distinguish information owned by your module. Usually you
+can just "echo <module_name> | sha1sum" and use the first 8 digits.
+For instance, if
+#echo seclvl | sha1sum | awk --field-separator="" '{ print \
+$1$2$3$4$5$6$7$8 '}
+40e81e47
+
+then in your my_lsm.h, add
+#define MY_LSM_ID 0x40e81e47
+
+Do make sure that no other module happens to have the same ID.
+
+Now when the kernel object is created, you may use
+security_set_value_type to append the struct to the object's list of
+security information. Note that you may ONLY use this while the kernel
+object is being created, ie during the security_<KERNEL_OBJECT>_alloc
+function. Since you are appending my_security_info to the inode, you
+will do so during the security_inode_alloc() hook. For instance,
+
+static inline int my_inode_alloc(struct inode *inode)
+{
+ struct my_security_info *my_data;
+
+ my_data = kmalloc(sizeof(struct my_security_info), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!my_data)
+ return -ENOMEM;
+ init_inode_data(my_data);
+
+ security_set_value_type(&inode->i_security, MY_LSM_ID, my_data);
+}
+
+If you need to append your information after the kernel object has been
+created, you may do so using security_add_value_type() hook. However,
+for both performance and security reasons, it is preferable to compile
+your module into the kernel and always append your info while the object
+is created.
+
+To get your information back, you may use security_get_value_type.
+For instance,
+
+static inline int my_inode_create(struct inode *dir,
+ struct dentry *dentry,
+ int mode)
+{
+ struct my_security_info *my_data;
+
+ my_data = security_get_value_type(&dir->i_security,
+ MY_LSM_ID, struct my_security_info);
+ if (!my_data || my_data->count)
+ return -EPERM;
+ return 0;
+}
+
+Finally, data appended to kernel objects must (for now) be removed
+during the security_<KERNEL_OBJECT>_free() function only. This is a
+limitation for performance reasons. Allowing data to be freed anytime
+would only be needed if security modules could be unloaded, which would
+then require two additions to the locking scheme: We would have to
+protect the object->security readers from data deletions, and likewise
+protect the actual security_operations structures from being unloaded
+while one of its member functions is executed. It is possible that the
+latter is sufficiently taken care of by the module unloading logic. The
+former would require waiting for a full rcu cycle between removing an
+element from the list, and actually deleting the element. Additional
+locking (ie a refcount) would be up to the module itself.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
