linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH security-next v2 26/26] LSM: Add all exclusive LSMs to ordered initialization

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <78fc6ba1-881a-9c82-ebc1-64311279050c@schaufler-ca.com>
Date:   Fri, 21 Sep 2018 07:57:30 -0700
From:   Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
To:     John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     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>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH security-next v2 26/26] LSM: Add all exclusive LSMs to
 ordered initialization

On 9/21/2018 6:19 AM, John Johansen wrote:
> On 09/20/2018 08:02 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 7:14 PM, John Johansen
>> <john.johansen@...onical.com> wrote:
>>> On 09/20/2018 07:05 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 6:39 PM, John Johansen
>>>> <john.johansen@...onical.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I like CONFIG_LSM_ENABLE if "empty" means "enable all". Should
>>>> CONFIG_LSM_ENABLE replace all the other CONFIG-based LSM
>>>> enabling/disabling?
>>> I don't particularly like "empty" being "enable all". With that
>>> how would I disable all builtin lsms so that I just boot with
>>> capability.
>>>
>>> An option of all or even * is more explicit and leaves the empty
>>> set to mean disable everything
>> Okay, that works. I prefer "all" FWIW.
>>
> me too, I was just trying to throw out options.

I'll buy that. "all" is fine by me, although it means we
can't have an LSM named "all". :) We should also allow "none"
to mean no LSMs. I know lots of people who love using security=none.