linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 16/18] LSM: Allow arbitrary LSM ordering

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

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?