On 10/03/2018 01:36 PM, Kees Cook wrote:

On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 1:10 PM, Kees Cook [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 11:28 AM, James Morris [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Wed, 3 Oct 2018, Kees Cook wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 11:17 AM, James Morris [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Tue, 2 Oct 2018, John Johansen wrote:

quoted

To me a list like
  lsm.enable=X,Y,Z

What about even simpler:

lsm=selinux,!apparmor,yama

We're going to have lsm.order=, so I'd like to keep it with a dot
separator (this makes it more like module parameters, too). You want
to mix enable/disable in the same string? That implies you'd want
implicit enabling (i.e. it complements the builtin enabling), which is
opposite from what John wanted.

Why can't this be the order as well?

That was covered extensively in the earlier threads. It boils down to
making sure we do not create a pattern of leaving LSMs disabled by
default when they are added to the kernel. The v1 series used
security= like this:

+       security=       [SECURITY] An ordered comma-separated list of
+                       security modules to attempt to enable at boot. If
+                       this boot parameter is not specified, only the
+                       security modules asking for initialization will be
+                       enabled (see CONFIG_DEFAULT_SECURITY). Duplicate
+                       or invalid security modules will be ignored. The
+                       capability module is always loaded first, without
+                       regard to this parameter.

This meant booting "security=apparmor" would disable all the other
LSMs, which wasn't friendly at all. So "security=" was left alone (to
leave it to only select the "major" LSM: all major LSMs not matching
"security=" would be disabled). So I proposed "lsm.order=" to specify
the order things were going to be initialized in, but to avoid kernels
booting with newly added LSMs forced-off due to not being listed in
"lsm.order=", it had to have implicit fall-back for unlisted LSMs.
(i.e. anything missing from lsm.order would then follow their order in
CONFIG_LSM_ORDER, and anything missing there would fall back to
link-time ordering.) However, then the objection was raised that this
didn't provide a way to explicitly disable an LSM. So I proposed
lsm.enable/disable, and John argued for CONFIG_LSM_ENABLE over
CONFIG_LSM_DISABLE.

I still think we should have all built LSMs enabled by default, with
CONFIG_LSM_DISABLE available to turn stuff off. CONFIG_LSM_ORDER

and this as a distro ubuntu does not want.
Ubuntu wants to make yes available by building them in, but does NOT
want all the LSM enabled by default, not even necessarily all minor LSMs.

As a distro we want a supported set as default, and users can opt-in
to new LSMs. If a new LSM comes along we don't want it enabled by
default, which happens Using the lsm disable approach.

declares their order, "lsm.order=" works as mentioned, and
"lsm.enable/disable=" make changes to what's enabled.

(This would be most like the v3 series, swapping CONFIG_LSM_ENABLE for
CONFIG_LSM_DISABLE.)

It gives us centralized ordering and centralized disabling. Distros
wanting specific LSMs are already building them, so _also_ adding them
to CONFIG_LSM_ENABLE seems redundant to me. Distros wanting all the

except as a disto we want to build in all LSMs by default but NOT have
new LSMs enabled by default.

The disable approach either mean we don't offer new LSMs in the
supported kernels, OR me distro patch so we have the enabled by
default list.

LSMs just want to declare the order of initialization, and maybe add
some to CONFIG_LSM_DISABLE some day, so they use CONFIG_LSM_ORDER.

individual LSMs may want that.

I should also note that I don't want to leave CONFIG_DEFAULT_SECURITY
in, since it's just a way to disable all the other majors. I don't
like this because it will force LSMs to be disabled that don't need to
be once blob-sharing lands. The whole point of this series is to get
us away from fixed ordering and thinking about "major" vs "minor" and
towards "exclusive" or not, where we can continue to slowly chip away
at exclusivity without breaking anything.

sure we definitely want to get away form "major" vs "minor" and in
generally even exclusive, except where to LSMs just can't live
with each other.

But that doesn't mean dropping something like default security. The
mistake with the current DEFAULT_SECURITY was that it only applied
to major LSMs, not the minor ones.