linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 10/10] LSM: Blob sharing support for S.A.R.A and LandLock

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: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1809150417550.18430@namei.org>
Date:   Sat, 15 Sep 2018 04:18:14 +1000 (AEST)
From:   James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
To:     Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
        linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        SE Linux <selinux@...ho.nsa.gov>,
        John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
        Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
        "linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
        "Schaufler, Casey" <casey.schaufler@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/10] LSM: Blob sharing support for S.A.R.A and
 LandLock

On Thu, 13 Sep 2018, Casey Schaufler wrote:

> On 9/13/2018 4:57 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com> wrote:
> >> On 9/13/2018 4:06 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> >>> - what order should any stacking happen? Makefile? security=?
> >> Makefile by default.
> > Okay, if ordering is by Makefile and everyone dislikes my
> > $lsm.enabled=0/1 thing, then these mean the same thing:
> >
> > security=selinux,tomoyo
> > security=tomoyo,selinux
> >
> > i.e. order of security= is _ignored_ in favor of the Makefile ordering.
> 
> No, I think that the two lines above should have a different
> execution order. If we really need to specify multiple modules
> at boot time that is what makes the most sense.

Agreed.


-- 
James Morris
<jmorris@...ei.org>