- Separate the suser part of the bsd44 secmodel into its own secmodel
and directory, pending even more cleanups. For revision history
purposes, the original location of the files was
src/sys/secmodel/bsd44/secmodel_bsd44_suser.c
src/sys/secmodel/bsd44/suser.h
- Add a man-page for secmodel_suser(9) and update the one for
secmodel_bsd44(9).
- Add a "secmodel" module class and use it. Userland program and
documentation updated.
- Manage secmodel count (nsecmodels) through the module framework.
This eliminates the need for secmodel_{,de}register() calls in
secmodel code.
- Prepare for secmodel modularization by adding relevant module bits.
The secmodels don't allow auto unload. The bsd44 secmodel depends
on the suser and securelevel secmodels. The overlay secmodel depends
on the bsd44 secmodel. As the module class is only cosmetic, and to
prevent ambiguity, the bsd44 and overlay secmodels are prefixed with
"secmodel_".
- Adapt the overlay secmodel to recent changes (mainly vnode scope).
- Stop using link-sets for the sysctl node(s) creation.
- Keep sysctl variables under nodes of their relevant secmodels. In
other words, don't create duplicates for the suser/securelevel
secmodels under the bsd44 secmodel, as the latter is merely used
for "grouping".
- For the suser and securelevel secmodels, "advertise presence" in
relevant sysctl nodes (sysctl.security.models.{suser,securelevel}).
- Get rid of the LKM preprocessor stuff.
- As secmodels are now modules, there's no need for an explicit call
to secmodel_start(); it's handled by the module framework. That
said, the module framework was adjusted to properly load secmodels
early during system startup.
- Adapt rump to changes: Instead of using empty stubs for securelevel,
simply use the suser secmodel. Also replace secmodel_start() with a
call to secmodel_suser_start().
- 5.99.20.
Testing was done on i386 ("release" build). Spearated module_init()
changes were tested on sparc and sparc64 as well by martin@ (thanks!).
Mailing list reference:
http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-kern/2009/09/25/msg006135.html
While it's true that it's part of the traditional 4.4BSD security model,
there may come a time where a different "primary" security model used for
fine-grained privileges (ie., splitting root's responsibilities to various
privileges that can be assigned) may want to still have a securelevel
setting.
Idea from Daniel Carosone:
http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-security/2006/08/25/0001.html
The location of the removed files, for reference, was:
src/secmodel/bsd44/secmodel_bsd44_securelevel.c
src/secmodel/bsd44/securelevel.h
requests and centralizing them all. The result is that some of these
are not used on some architectures, but the documentation was updated
to reflect that.
super-user and securelevel.
The securelevel part was compiled of text from both init(8) and OpenBSD's
securelevel(7), and brought in-sync with what we really do.
