[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47335573-08f1-0efc-e51a-e2b6a6b69a01@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2019 11:44:12 +0900
From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...merspace.com>,
"open list:NFS, SUNRPC, AND..." <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
Anna Schumaker <anna.schumaker@...app.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: mount.nfs: Protocol error after upgrade to linux/master
On 2019/03/23 7:45, Kees Cook wrote:
> It breaks the backward-compat for the "security=" line. If a system is
> booted with CONFIG_LSM="minors...,apparmor" and "security=selinux",
> neither apparmor nor selinux will be initialized. The logic on
> "security=..." depends on the other LSMs being present in the list.
Really? The logic on "security=..." does not depend on LSM_FLAG_LEGACY_MAJOR
LSMs being present in the CONFIG_LSM= list, for ordered_lsm_parse() does
(Step 1) Enable LSM_ORDER_FIRST module (i.e. capability).
(Step 2) Disable LSM_FLAG_LEGACY_MAJOR modules which was not specified
by "security=" parameter when "security=" parameter was specified.
(Step 3) Enable modules specified by "lsm=" parameter (or CONFIG_LSM= settings
if "lsm=" parameter was not specified).
(Step 4) Enable up to one LSM_FLAG_LEGACY_MAJOR module which was specified
by "security=" parameter when "security=" parameter was specified.
(Step 5) Disable all unused modules.
and (Step 4) will compensate for lack of that module in (Step 3).
Powered by blists - more mailing lists