[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jJm+qxgnmRjJtTuaqj6N7WP+TVF4tUm30WUmMDT3irvFg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2019 13:33:13 -0800
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
Cc: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
syzbot <syzbot+21016130b0580a9de3b5@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@...onical.com>,
John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
Serge Hallyn <serge@...lyn.com>,
syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com>,
Jeffrey Vander Stoep <jeffv@...gle.com>,
SELinux <selinux@...r.kernel.org>,
Russell Coker <russell@...er.com.au>,
Laurent Bigonville <bigon@...ian.org>,
syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] LSM: Allow syzbot to ignore security= parameter.
On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 8:24 AM Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com> wrote:
> I added Kees to the CC list. Kees, what to you think about
> ignoring security= if lsm= is specified? I'm ambivalent.
This was one of many earlier suggestions, and the consensus seemed to
be "don't mix security= and lsm=". Why would anyone use both?
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists