Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Introduce the pkill_on_warn parameter
Casey Schaufler <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | com.openwall.lists.kernel-hardening,org.kernel.vger.linux-arch,org.kernel.vger.linux-doc,org.kernel.vger.linux-fsdevel,org.kernel.vger.linux-hardening,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
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?