[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <060150b2-4bb4-bdcb-760a-5aa5e1ade381@canonical.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2018 16:26:09 -0700
From: John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>
Cc: Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
"Schaufler, Casey" <casey.schaufler@...el.com>,
LSM <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
LKLM <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/18] LSM: Allow arbitrary LSM ordering
On 09/17/2018 04:20 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 4:10 PM, Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net> wrote:
>> Landlock, because it target unprivileged users, should only be called
>> after all other major (access-control) LSMs. The admin or distro must
>> not be able to change that order in any way. This constraint doesn't
>> apply to current LSMs, though.
>
> Good point! It will be easy to add LSM_ORDER_LAST, though, given the
> machinery introduced in this series.
>
And when we have two LSMs that want to use that?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists