[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAG48ez1TPsz30WebxQPkZbjfPTyT2ui7L+4ZQ94FStCkWcJ0VA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2018 03:32:01 +0200
From: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>,
penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp,
Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
Casey Schaufler <casey.schaufler@...el.com>,
linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/18] LSM: Lift LSM selection out of individual LSMs
On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 3:14 AM Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> In order to adjust LSM selection logic in the future, this moves the
> selection logic up out of the individual LSMs, making their init functions
> only run when actually enabled.
[...]
> +/* Is an LSM allowed to be enabled? */
> +static bool __init lsm_enabled(struct lsm_info *lsm)
> +{
> + /* Report explicit disabling. */
> + if (lsm->enabled && !*lsm->enabled) {
> + pr_info("%s disabled with boot parameter\n", lsm->name);
> + return false;
> + }
> +
> + /* If LSM isn't exclusive, ignore exclusive LSM selection rules. */
> + if (lsm->type != LSM_TYPE_EXCLUSIVE)
> + return true;
> +
> + /* Disabled if another exclusive LSM already selected. */
> + if (exclusive)
> + return false;
What is this check for, given that you have the strcmp() just below
here? From a quick look, it (together with everything else that
touches the "exclusive" variable) seems superfluous to me, unless
there are two LSMs with the same name (which really shouldn't happen,
right?).
> + /* Disabled if this LSM isn't the chosen one. */
> + if (strcmp(lsm->name, chosen_lsm) != 0)
> + return false;
> +
> + return true;
> +}
Powered by blists - more mailing lists