Thread (92 messages) 92 messages, 7 authors, 2018-10-08

Re: [PATCH security-next v4 23/32] selinux: Remove boot parameter

From: John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com>
Date: 2018-10-03 13:16:07
Also in: linux-arch, linux-doc, lkml

On 10/02/2018 05:12 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 5:05 PM, John Johansen
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On 10/02/2018 04:54 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
quoted
That's not how I have it currently. It's a comma-separated a string,
including the reserved name "all". The default would just be
"CONFIG_LSM_ENABLE=all". Casey and I wanted this to have a way to
capture new LSMs by default at build-time.
I understand where you are coming from, but speaking with my distro
hat on, that is not going to work. As a distro Ubuntu very much wants
to be able to offer all the LSMs built in to the kernel so the user
can select them. But very much wants to be able to specify a default
supported subset that is enabled at boot.

I expect RH and Suse will feel similarily. Speaking for Ubuntu if this
isn't available as part of lsm stacking it will get distro patched in.
Right. Ubuntu would do something like:

CONFIG_LSM_ENABLE=yama,apparmor,integrity

And that's why I wanted non-explicit lsm.enable, so that an end user
could just do:

lsm.enable=loadpin

to add loadpin.

Perhaps we could have both? "lsm.enable=+loadpin" (add loadpin to
build default list) vs "lsm.enable=loadpin" (override build default
list with ONLY loadpin).
Maybe? I'm not sure what the best option is with all the competing
requirements/desires. I need to think about it more and would like
to see what others think.
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help