[PATCH security-next v2 26/26] LSM: Add all exclusive LSMs to ordered initialization
From: casey@schaufler-ca.com (Casey Schaufler)
Date: 2018-09-21 01:10:38
Also in:
linux-arch, linux-doc, lkml
On 9/20/2018 5:45 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 5:25 PM, Casey Schaufler [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On 9/20/2018 9:23 AM, Kees Cook wrote:quoted
config LSM_ORDER string "Default initialization order of builtin LSMs" - default "yama,loadpin,integrity" + default "yama,loadpin,integrity,selinux,smack,tomoyo,apparmor"If I want to compile all the major modules into my kernel and use AppArmor by default would I use default "yama,loadpin,integrity,apparmor,selinux,smack,tomoyo" or default "yama,loadpin,integrity,apparmor"I was expecting the former, but the latter will have the same result.quoted
When we have "blob-sharing" how could I compile in tomoyo, but exclude it without a boot line option?Ooh, yes, this series has no way to do that. Perhaps CONFIG_LSM_DISABLE in the same form as CONFIG_LSM_ORDER? I would totally remove LoadPin's CONFIG for this in favor it.
I would generally prefer an optional CONFIG_LSM_ENABLE to CONFIG_LSM_DISABLE, but I understand the logic behind your approach. I would be looking for something like CONFIG LSM_ENABLE string "Default set of enabled LSMs" default "" as opposed to CONFIG LSM_DISABLE string "Default set of disabled LSMs" default "" where an empty string is interpreted as "use 'em all" in either case.
quoted
When we have full stacking, how could I compile in selinux but exclude it?Yup, same problem. Same suggested solution? Should lsm.enable/disable= also become a comma-separated list, or should I leave it as a multi-instance thing like I have it?
I prefer the multi-instance lsm.disable=selinux lsm.disable=yama to the list lsm.disable=selinux,yama but at this point I don't really care all that much.