Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH procd] initd/init: add minimal SELinux policy loading support
Hello Thomas, Le lun. 18 nov. 2019 à 05:33, Thomas Petazzoni a écrit : > > Hello Petr, > > Thanks for your feedback again. > > On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 14:22:13 +0100 > Petr Štetiar wrote: > > > (nitpick, it's OpenWrt, not OpenWRT) > > Thanks for this clarification, it's always good to use the proper > capitalization for project names. I'll try to use OpenWrt in the > future, but please bear with me if I sometimes forget. > > > > No, this patch is not RFC, it should be ready for merging, I'm already > > > using it in some devices. > > > > Ok, this patch is good enough for your limited use case, but in order to > > include SELinux support in OpenWrt, then the first patch series should be > > more > > comprehensive, minimal yet complete. > > I guess I'll send the patch series itself, so we can have the > discussion on the actual proposal. I sent this procd patch separately, > just because it is a requirement for the rest of the series to work > (right now I was working with this procd patch in the OpenWrt procd > package). > > > > The thing is that the SELinux support in OpenWRT needs this improvement > > > in procd, otherwise it won't work at runtime as nothing will be loading > > > the SELinux policy. > > > > Where is that policy? What about kernel part? What about userspace part? > > What > > about filesystem image? And so on. > > In terms of policy, I'm simply using the reference policy provided by > the SELinux project itself, with no specific customization for OpenWrt. > Of course, additional tuning may be required, but for my use case, it > was sufficient. In terms of kernel part, it of course requires some > kernel options to be enabled. In terms of user-space parts, this is > where my patch series is the most interesting: it packages all the > user-space components that are necessary to be able to work with > SELinux. If you can include the compressed size of each part, this is also important for the discussion I think I know part of the debug tools on regular distro, like audit2why, are python scripts, so pretty huge dependency Regards Etienne > > > > Regarding the flash space, RAM and CPU overhead, I'm not sure it's that > > > relevant: the SELinux packaging I've done makes it completely optional, > > > so you only have an impact of flash space, RAM and CPU if you enable > > > SELinux support. > > > > Once its merged, we basically say, that its more or less supported, even if > > it's optional. > > > > It's pretty much crystal clear, that some additional hardening layer would > > be > > very welcome. I think, that OpenWrt should aim for something, which could be > > usable on most of modern devices today and enabled by default. Security > > shouldn't be an option, it should be default. > > > > SELinux is just one of the LSMs in Linux. Is SELinux the right one for > > OpenWrt project? Are we going to support all of them? I doubt that, so > > decision needs to be made. > > I guess here I don't have the OpenWrt mindset, as I come from a > Buildroot background. Buildroot supports multiple solutions for the > same "problem", and let users decide which solution they want to use > (so the users have some integration work to do), while it seems that > OpenWrt wants to make a decision on one solution to use, but provide > something that is seamlessly integrated for users. > > > > Do you have more details about entering failsafe mode ? How do you do > > > that ? > > > > It's usually triggered by the button during the boot process[1], but it > > should > > be possible to force it from procd as well. > > > > 1. > > https://openwrt.org/docs/guide-user/troubleshooting/failsafe_and_factory_reset > > OK, thanks. > > Thomas > -- > Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin > Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering > https://bootlin.com > > ___ > openwrt-devel mailing list > openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org > https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH procd] initd/init: add minimal SELinux policy loading support
Hello Petr, Thanks for your feedback again. On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 14:22:13 +0100 Petr Štetiar wrote: > (nitpick, it's OpenWrt, not OpenWRT) Thanks for this clarification, it's always good to use the proper capitalization for project names. I'll try to use OpenWrt in the future, but please bear with me if I sometimes forget. > > No, this patch is not RFC, it should be ready for merging, I'm already > > using it in some devices. > > Ok, this patch is good enough for your limited use case, but in order to > include SELinux support in OpenWrt, then the first patch series should be more > comprehensive, minimal yet complete. I guess I'll send the patch series itself, so we can have the discussion on the actual proposal. I sent this procd patch separately, just because it is a requirement for the rest of the series to work (right now I was working with this procd patch in the OpenWrt procd package). > > The thing is that the SELinux support in OpenWRT needs this improvement > > in procd, otherwise it won't work at runtime as nothing will be loading > > the SELinux policy. > > Where is that policy? What about kernel part? What about userspace part? What > about filesystem image? And so on. In terms of policy, I'm simply using the reference policy provided by the SELinux project itself, with no specific customization for OpenWrt. Of course, additional tuning may be required, but for my use case, it was sufficient. In terms of kernel part, it of course requires some kernel options to be enabled. In terms of user-space parts, this is where my patch series is the most interesting: it packages all the user-space components that are necessary to be able to work with SELinux. > > Regarding the flash space, RAM and CPU overhead, I'm not sure it's that > > relevant: the SELinux packaging I've done makes it completely optional, > > so you only have an impact of flash space, RAM and CPU if you enable > > SELinux support. > > Once its merged, we basically say, that its more or less supported, even if > it's optional. > > It's pretty much crystal clear, that some additional hardening layer would be > very welcome. I think, that OpenWrt should aim for something, which could be > usable on most of modern devices today and enabled by default. Security > shouldn't be an option, it should be default. > > SELinux is just one of the LSMs in Linux. Is SELinux the right one for > OpenWrt project? Are we going to support all of them? I doubt that, so > decision needs to be made. I guess here I don't have the OpenWrt mindset, as I come from a Buildroot background. Buildroot supports multiple solutions for the same "problem", and let users decide which solution they want to use (so the users have some integration work to do), while it seems that OpenWrt wants to make a decision on one solution to use, but provide something that is seamlessly integrated for users. > > Do you have more details about entering failsafe mode ? How do you do that > > ? > > It's usually triggered by the button during the boot process[1], but it should > be possible to force it from procd as well. > > 1. > https://openwrt.org/docs/guide-user/troubleshooting/failsafe_and_factory_reset OK, thanks. Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH procd] initd/init: add minimal SELinux policy loading support
Thomas Petazzoni [2019-11-15 09:16:32]: (nitpick, it's OpenWrt, not OpenWRT) > No, this patch is not RFC, it should be ready for merging, I'm already > using it in some devices. Ok, this patch is good enough for your limited use case, but in order to include SELinux support in OpenWrt, then the first patch series should be more comprehensive, minimal yet complete. > The thing is that the SELinux support in OpenWRT needs this improvement > in procd, otherwise it won't work at runtime as nothing will be loading > the SELinux policy. Where is that policy? What about kernel part? What about userspace part? What about filesystem image? And so on. > Regarding the flash space, RAM and CPU overhead, I'm not sure it's that > relevant: the SELinux packaging I've done makes it completely optional, > so you only have an impact of flash space, RAM and CPU if you enable > SELinux support. Once its merged, we basically say, that its more or less supported, even if it's optional. It's pretty much crystal clear, that some additional hardening layer would be very welcome. I think, that OpenWrt should aim for something, which could be usable on most of modern devices today and enabled by default. Security shouldn't be an option, it should be default. SELinux is just one of the LSMs in Linux. Is SELinux the right one for OpenWrt project? Are we going to support all of them? I doubt that, so decision needs to be made. > Do you have more details about entering failsafe mode ? How do you do that ? It's usually triggered by the button during the boot process[1], but it should be possible to force it from procd as well. 1. https://openwrt.org/docs/guide-user/troubleshooting/failsafe_and_factory_reset -- ynezz ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH procd] initd/init: add minimal SELinux policy loading support
Hello Petr, Thanks for your feedback! On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 06:29:49 +0100 Petr Štetiar wrote: > is this some kind of RFC/idea probe? I like the idea, additional hardening is > needed and welcome I would say. No, this patch is not RFC, it should be ready for merging, I'm already using it in some devices. > > I have patches ready to add some minimal SELinux support to OpenWRT, > > which I intend to send in the near future. > > It would probably make more sense to send somehow minimal but complete working > SELinux support so one could see what it would mean in terms of flash space, > RAM, CPU overhead etc. Maybe adding one of the default services exposed to the > network as initial example? The thing is that the SELinux support in OpenWRT needs this improvement in procd, otherwise it won't work at runtime as nothing will be loading the SELinux policy. Regarding the flash space, RAM and CPU overhead, I'm not sure it's that relevant: the SELinux packaging I've done makes it completely optional, so you only have an impact of flash space, RAM and CPU if you enable SELinux support. If you don't, then your OpenWRT system is exactly like it was before. > > + pkg_search_module(SELINUX REQUIRED libselinux) > > This looks like a missing dependency. Sorry, but I don't understand what you mean here. Or maybe you're saying that there is no libselinux package in OpenWRT ? That is true, and will be part of my patch series to OpenWRT adding all the packages related to OpenWRT support. > > fprintf(stderr, "Cannot load SELinux policy, but system in enforcing mode. > > Halting.\n"); > > Just a side note, halting in the context of running on the router means > flashing of factory image. Halting doesn't provide any feedback to the user, > if we don't consider stuck-in-the-bootlop as a proper feedback. Probably > entering failsafe(has LED feedback) or such would make more sense here? Do you have more details about entering failsafe mode ? How do you do that ? Thanks, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH procd] initd/init: add minimal SELinux policy loading support
Thomas Petazzoni [2019-11-13 16:12:41]: Hi, is this some kind of RFC/idea probe? I like the idea, additional hardening is needed and welcome I would say. > I have patches ready to add some minimal SELinux support to OpenWRT, > which I intend to send in the near future. It would probably make more sense to send somehow minimal but complete working SELinux support so one could see what it would mean in terms of flash space, RAM, CPU overhead etc. Maybe adding one of the default services exposed to the network as initial example? > + pkg_search_module(SELINUX REQUIRED libselinux) This looks like a missing dependency. > fprintf(stderr, "Cannot load SELinux policy, but system in enforcing mode. > Halting.\n"); Just a side note, halting in the context of running on the router means flashing of factory image. Halting doesn't provide any feedback to the user, if we don't consider stuck-in-the-bootlop as a proper feedback. Probably entering failsafe(has LED feedback) or such would make more sense here? I'm not implying, that this needs to be solved from the beginning, halting during development is alright, just something to think about. -- ynezz ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
