linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH security-next v3 18/29] LSM: Introduce lsm.enable= and lsm.disable=

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]

Date:   Mon, 1 Oct 2018 16:49:57 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>
Cc:     Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
        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 v3 18/29] LSM: Introduce lsm.enable= and lsm.disable=

On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 4:44 PM, John Johansen
<john.johansen@...onical.com> wrote:
> On 10/01/2018 04:30 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>> If we keep it, "apparmor=0 lsm_enable=apparmor" would mean it's
>> enabled. Is that okay?
>>
> ugh I would rather get rid of apparmor=0 or to emit a warning with apparmor
> disabled, but if we have to live with it then yes I can live with last
> option wins

Removing it would be much preferred! :)

Assuming Paul is okay with the same results in SELinux, I'll prepare patches...

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security