Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 5 Oct 2018 14:58:13 +1000 (AEST) | From | James Morris <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH security-next v4 23/32] selinux: Remove boot parameter |
| |
On Thu, 4 Oct 2018, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 10:49 AM, James Morris <jmorris@namei.org> wrote: > > On Wed, 3 Oct 2018, Kees Cook wrote: > >> Then someone boots the system with: > >> > >> selinux=1 security=selinux > >> > >> In what order does selinux get initialized relative to yama? > >> (apparmor, flagged as a "legacy major", would have been disabled by > >> the "security=" not matching it.) > > > > It doesn't, it needs to be specified in one place. > > > > Distros will need to update boot parameter handling for this kernel > > onwards. Otherwise, we will need to carry this confusing mess forward > > forever. > > Are you saying that you want to overrule Paul and Stephen about > keeping "selinux=1 secuiryt=selinux" working?
Not overrule, but convince.
At least, deprecate selinux=1 and security=X, but not extend it any further.
> > In my most recent suggestion, there is no '!' disablement, just > > enablement. If an LSM is not listed in CONFIG_LSM="", it's not enabled. > > And a user would need to specify ALL lsms on the "lsm=" line? >
Yes, the ones they want enabled.
> What do you think of my latest proposal? It could happily work all > three ways: old boot params and security= work ("selinux=1 > security=selinux" keeps working), individual LSM enable/disable works > ("lsm=+loadpin"), and full LSM ordering works > ("lsm=each,lsm,in,order,here"): > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAGXu5jJJit8bDNvgXaFkuvFPy7NWtJW2oRWFbG-6iWk0+A1qng@mail.gmail.com/ >
I think having something like +yama will still lead to confusion. Explicitly stating each enabled LSM in order is totally unambiguous.
If people are moving away from the distro defaults, and there is no high-level interface to manage this, it seems to me there's a deeper issue with the distro.
-- James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>
| |