Stemming from a security researcher and his team proposing a new Linux Security Module (LSM) three years ago and it not being accepted to the mainline kernel, he raised issue over the lack of review/action to Linus Torvalds and the mailing lists. In particular, seeking more guidance for how new LSMs should be introduced and raised the possibility of taking the issue to the Linux Foundation Technical Advisory Board (TAB).
This mailing list post today laid out that a proposed TSEM LSM for a framework for generic security modeling was proposed but saw little review activity in the past three years or specific guidance on getting that LSM accepted to the Linux kernel. Thus seeking documented guidance on new Linux Security Module submissions for how they should be optimally introduced otherwise the developers are “prepared to pursue this through the [Technical Advisory Board] if necessary.”
Where can I find more info on his Linux as an organisation is run/structured? As in what hand does Linus play, what are these mailing lists, how do the devs work on things and how are they approved, what role rhe TAB (and others?) plays etc.
A list of Linux Security Modules is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_Security_Modules
List of Linux Security Modules
snark
(I didn’t read the wiki page closely. Why was the heading “Adoption” and not something more clear?)
AppArmor Integrity Policy Enforcement (IPE)[6] Landlock[7][8] LoadPin[9] SafeSetID[10] SELinux Smack TOMOYO Yama[11]As a long time SysAdmin, but not your SysAdmin, I have used two of these. Both had terrible documentation for which many “must use” paid software vendors advise disabling the Security Module as a first step.
If random software vendors’ lowest paid intern cannot figure out the settings for arbitrary Linux Security Modules, then the first line of the directions will always be to disable the security module. This leads to them not being used in many cases where the security module would be helpful.
snark
(To explain, it is only the cheapest and most inexperienced person that is typically responsible for doing things as they are not in meetings all day.)
I agree with Linus.
If the lowest paid intern gets to use AI, then it will probably help them configure it properly… the docs generally aren’t bad (of the ones I’ve seen/used), but they’re not newbie/intern level docs.
I barely trust natural intelligence with anything relating to security.
“Trust but verify” … which just means doing due diligence as a professional, whether the crapHHHHquality code and documentation is written by a human or AI.
Humans are incredibly good at saying dumb shit while making it seem like it could be the right thing, but LLMs are arguably better at it.
And you, and I, and everyone here, will fall for it… not always, but too often. We are all lazy thinkers by nature.
What exactly is a linux security module? Like what do they do?
Like when there’s a security issue, it gets patched- what does a module of some kind add to that?
“Yes, I know that security people always think they know best, and they all disagree with each other, which is why we already have tons of security modules. Ask ten people what model is the right one, and you get fifteen different answers.”
“I’m not in the least interested in becoming some kind of arbiter or voice of sanity in this.”
How do you even get to a consensus model to tease these things out; when your answer is a refusal to engage with “pointless” things?
It just seems contentious to me, that anyone when considering this kind of rhetoric, would make claims in regards to the level of security that Linux (may) provide. It just feels something akin to playing in the realm of security theater.
Man, some people just love wasting others’ time and then getting mad when they say no more.
Linus’ apathy may keep ten different competing security ideas from each being mainlined, but it’s not impossible for them to continue and prove their worth out of tree until some sort of coherent best practices are established.
Meanwhile, actual security issues will continue to be patched as needed and Linux remains the most analyzed and targeted kernel in the world.
prove their worth out of tree until some sort of coherent best practices are established
I feel like this is what the Technical Advisory Board should be replying with.
