linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] LSM: Ignore "security=" when "lsm=" is specified

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]

Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1902121106060.20164@namei.org>
Date:   Tue, 12 Feb 2019 11:07:18 +1100 (AEDT)
From:   James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
cc:     Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
        linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] LSM: Ignore "security=" when "lsm=" is specified

On Mon, 11 Feb 2019, Kees Cook wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 3:10 PM Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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=".
> 
> Fine by me. James? What would you like here?

How about security= is ignored because it is superseded by lsm= ?


-- 
James Morris
<jmorris@...ei.org>