On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 4:01 PM James Morris [off-list ref] wrote:

On Fri, 21 Jun 2019, Matthew Garrett wrote:

quoted

Minor updates over V33 - security_is_locked_down renamed to
security_locked_down, return value of security_locked_down is returned
in most cases, one unnecessary patch was dropped, couple of minor nits
fixed.

Thanks for the respin.

We are still not resolved on granularity. Stephen has said he's not sure
if a useful policy can be constructed with just confidentiality and
integrity settings. I'd be interested to know JJ and Casey's thoughts on
lockdown policy flexibility wrt their respective LSMs.

This implementation provides arbitrary granularity at the LSM level,
though the lockdown LSM itself only provides two levels. Other LSMs
can choose an appropriate level of exposure.

These are also "all or nothing" choices which may prevent deployment due
to a user needing to allow (presumably controlled or mitigated) exceptions
to the policy.

Distributions have been deploying the "all or nothing" solution for
several years now, which implies that it's adequate for the common
case. I think it's reasonable to punt finer grained policies over to
other LSMs - people who want that are probably already using custom
LSM policy.