linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH -mm] LSM: Add lsm= boot parameter

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <674864.46980.qm@web36615.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date:	Sat, 1 Mar 2008 13:29:53 -0800 (PST)
From:	Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
To:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>,
	Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
Cc:	"Ahmed S. Darwish" <darwish.07@...il.com>,
	Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
	Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>,
	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...ru>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	LSM-ML <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH -mm] LSM: Add lsm= boot parameter


--- Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 01, 2008 at 12:28:43PM -0800, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> > 
> > --- "Ahmed S. Darwish" <darwish.07@...il.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Hi everybody,
> > > 
> > > This is a first try of adding lsm= boot parameter. 
> > > 
> > > Current situation is:
> > > 1- Ignore wrong input, with a small warning to users.
> > > 2- If user didn't specify a specific module, none will be loaded
> > 
> > I'm not fond of this behavior for the case where only one LSM
> > has been built in. Fedora, for example, ought to boot SELinux
> > without specifing lsm=SELinux, and all the rest should boot
> > whatever they are built with. In the case where a kernel is
> > built with conflicting LSMs (today SELinux and Smack) I see
> > this as a useful way to decide which to use until you get
> > your kernel rebuilt sanely, so it appears to be worth having.
> >...
> 
> Remarks:
> 
> Your comment would be covered if the default for this boot parameter (if 
> not explicitely set through the boot loader would not be "disabled" but 
> set through kconfig (based on the selected LSMs).

Agreed.

> We should really get this resolved for 2.6.25.

Agreed.

> security= suggestion is IMHO more intuitive than lsm=

security is a very overloaded term, but since this is one
of the ways it's already loaded in I could be OK with that.


Casey Schaufler
casey@...aufler-ca.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/