Thread (45 messages) 45 messages, 4 authors, 2018-09-21

[PATCH security-next v2 26/26] LSM: Add all exclusive LSMs to ordered initialization

From: john.johansen@canonical.com (John Johansen)
Date: 2018-09-21 01:39:38
Also in: linux-arch, linux-doc, lkml

On 09/20/2018 06:10 PM, Casey Schaufler wrote:
On 9/20/2018 5:45 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
quoted
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.
t find having the two be equivalent violates expectations. At least
when considering the end goal of full/extreme stacking, its trivially
the same with current major lsms being exclusive
quoted
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
+1 on the CONFIG_LSM_ENABLE ove DISABLE
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
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.
the comma separated list however is consistent with what is being
done for default order
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help