[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jLcK6k+Ox5Q1ZN_4wF9WeR6KchX9LJzbSbfdrcDpZftLg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2018 13:29:42 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>
Cc: Jordan Glover <Golden_Miller83@...tonmail.ch>,
Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
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>,
"Schaufler, Casey" <casey.schaufler@...el.com>,
linux-security-module <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 v4 23/32] selinux: Remove boot parameter
On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 12:47 PM, John Johansen
<john.johansen@...onical.com> wrote:
> On 10/02/2018 12:17 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>> I could define CONFIG_LSM_ENABLE as being "additive" to
>> SECURITY_APPARMOR_BOOTPARAM_VALUE and
>> SECURITY_SELINUX_BOOTPARAM_VALUE?
>
> Oh sure lets deal with my complaint about too many ways to configure
> this beast by adding yet another config option :P
This is what v3 already does: SEC...BOOTPARAM_VALUE trumps ...LSM_ENABLE.
> seriously though, please no. That just adds another layer of confusion
> even if it is only being foisted on the distro/builder
You've already sent a patch removing
SECURITY_APPARMOR_BOOTPARAM_VALUE. If SELinux is fine to do that too,
then I think we'll be sorted out. I'll just need to make "lsm.enable="
be an explicit list. (Do you have a problem with "lsm.disable=..." ?)
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security
Powered by blists - more mailing lists