On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 3:10 PM Casey Schaufler [off-list ref] wrote:

On 2/11/2019 2:54 PM, Kees Cook wrote:

quoted

To avoid potential confusion, explicitly ignore "security=" when "lsm=" is
used on the command line, and report that it is happening.

Suggested-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <redacted>
---
 security/security.c | 8 ++++++--
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/security/security.c b/security/security.c
index 3147785e20d7..e6153ed54361 100644
--- a/security/security.c
+++ b/security/security.c

@@ -288,9 +288,13 @@ static void __init ordered_lsm_init(void)
      ordered_lsms = kcalloc(LSM_COUNT + 1, sizeof(*ordered_lsms),
                              GFP_KERNEL);

-     if (chosen_lsm_order)
+     if (chosen_lsm_order) {
+             if (chosen_major_lsm) {
+                     pr_info("security= is ignored because of lsm=\n");

This is a little awkward. How about "lsm= supersedes security=".

Fine by me. James? What would you like here?

-- 
Kees Cook