Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] security: Introduce LSM_ORDER_LAST and set it for the integrity LSM
From: Roberto Sassu <hidden>
Date: 2023-03-10 07:58:15
Also in:
bpf, linux-integrity, lkml
From: Roberto Sassu <hidden>
Date: 2023-03-10 07:58:15
Also in:
bpf, linux-integrity, lkml
On Thu, 2023-03-09 at 18:44 -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 3:55 AM Roberto Sassu [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
From: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com> Introduce LSM_ORDER_LAST, to satisfy the requirement of LSMs needing to be last, e.g. the 'integrity' LSM, without changing the kernel command line or configuration. Also, set this order for the 'integrity' LSM. While not enforced, this is the only LSM expected to use it. Similarly to LSM_ORDER_FIRST, LSMs with LSM_ORDER_LAST are always enabled and put at the end of the LSM list.Since you are respinning this patchset anyway, I might make it clear that the LSM_ORDER_LAST LSMs are always enabled only when they are enabled at kernel configure/build time. Simply marking a LSM as LSM_ORDER_LAST does not mean you don't have to explicitly select the LSM in the rest of the Kconfig.
Ok, yes, better to clarify. Thanks Roberto
quoted
Finally, for LSM_ORDER_MUTABLE LSMs, set the found variable to true if an LSM is found, regardless of its order. In this way, the kernel would not wrongly report that the LSM is not built-in in the kernel if its order is LSM_ORDER_LAST. Fixes: 79f7865d844c ("LSM: Introduce "lsm=" for boottime LSM selection") Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com> --- include/linux/lsm_hooks.h | 1 + security/integrity/iint.c | 1 + security/security.c | 12 +++++++++--- 3 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)