lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Sep]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 16/18] LSM: Allow arbitrary LSM ordering
    From
    Date
    On 2018/09/17 8:00, Kees Cook wrote:
    > On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 11:49 AM, Casey Schaufler
    > <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote:
    >> One solution is to leave security= as is, not affecting "minor"
    >> modules and only allowing specification of one major module, and adding
    >
    > I would much prefer this, yes.
    >
    > A question remains: how do we map the existing "security=" selection
    > of a "major" LSM against what will be next "exclusive" plus tomoyo,
    > and in the extreme case, nothing?
    >
    > Perhaps as part of deprecating "security=", we could just declare that
    > it is selecting between SELinux, AppArmor, Smack, and Tomoyo only?
    >
    >> another boot option security.stack= that overrides a security= option
    >> and that takes the list as you've implemented here.
    >
    > or "lsm.stack=" that overrides "security=" entirely?


    Yes, I think we can add new option.

    For example, introducing lsm= and obsoleting security= (because total length for
    kernel command line is limited while enumeration makes the parameter value longer).

    security= works like current behavior.

    lsm= requires explicit enumeration of all modules (except capability which has to
    be always enabled) which should be enabled at boot.

    security= is ignored if lsm= is specified.

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2018-09-17 02:48    [W:2.383 / U:0.008 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site