‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 4:57 PM, Stephen Smalley [off-list ref] wrote:

On 10/02/2018 10:44 AM, Kees Cook wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 6:42 AM, Stephen Smalley sds@tycho.nsa.gov wrote:

quoted

On 10/02/2018 08:12 AM, Paul Moore wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 9:04 PM Kees Cook keescook@chromium.org wrote:

quoted

Since LSM enabling is now centralized with CONFIG_LSM_ENABLE and
"lsm.enable=...", this removes the LSM-specific enabling logic from
SELinux.

Signed-off-by: Kees Cook keescook@chromium.org

-----------------------------------------------

.../admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt | 9 ------
security/selinux/Kconfig | 29 -------------------
security/selinux/hooks.c | 15 +---------
3 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 52 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt

b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
index cf963febebb0..0d10ab3d020e 100644

--- a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
+++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt

@@ -4045,15 +4045,6 @@

loaded. An invalid security module name will be
treated
as if no module has been chosen.

-         selinux=        [SELINUX] Disable or enable SELinux at boot time.


-                         Format: { "0" | "1" }


-                         See security/selinux/Kconfig help text.


-                         0 -- disable.


-                         1 -- enable.


-                         Default value is set via kernel config option.


-                         If enabled at boot time, /selinux/disable can be



used

-                         later to disable prior to initial policy load.

No comments yet on the rest of the patchset, but the subject line of
this patch caught my eye and I wanted to comment quickly on this one
...
Not a fan unfortunately.
Much like the SELinux bits under /proc/self/attr, this is a user
visible thing which has made its way into a lot of docs, scripts, and
minds; I believe removing it would be a big mistake.

Yes, we can't suddenly break existing systems that had selinux=0 in their
grub config. We have to retain the support.

Is it okay to only support selinux=0 (instead of also selinux=1)?

For Fedora/RHEL kernels, selinux=1 would be redundant since it is the
default. However, in other distros where SELinux is not the default, I
think they have documented selinux=1 as the way to enable SELinux. So
users may be relying on that as well. I don't think we can safely drop
support for either one. Sorry.

It's always documented as: "selinux=1 security=selinux" so security= should
still do the job and selinux=1 become no-op, no?

Jordan