[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <74310e83-a258-e9c0-7d98-8b2cc5ced3a4@schaufler-ca.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 15:10:20 -0800
From: Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
Cc: linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] LSM: Ignore "security=" when "lsm=" is specified
On 2/11/2019 2:54 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> To avoid potential confusion, explicitly ignore "security=" when "lsm=" is
> used on the command line, and report that it is happening.
>
> Suggested-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
> ---
> security/security.c | 8 ++++++--
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/security/security.c b/security/security.c
> index 3147785e20d7..e6153ed54361 100644
> --- a/security/security.c
> +++ b/security/security.c
> @@ -288,9 +288,13 @@ static void __init ordered_lsm_init(void)
> ordered_lsms = kcalloc(LSM_COUNT + 1, sizeof(*ordered_lsms),
> GFP_KERNEL);
>
> - if (chosen_lsm_order)
> + if (chosen_lsm_order) {
> + if (chosen_major_lsm) {
> + pr_info("security= is ignored because of lsm=\n");
This is a little awkward. How about "lsm= supersedes security=".
> + chosen_major_lsm = NULL;
> + }
> ordered_lsm_parse(chosen_lsm_order, "cmdline");
> - else
> + } else
> ordered_lsm_parse(builtin_lsm_order, "builtin");
>
> for (lsm = ordered_lsms; *lsm; lsm++)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists