[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <418628ea-f524-05a1-8bfc-a688fa2d625d@schaufler-ca.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2022 09:32:29 -0800
From: Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
To: Petr Vorel <pvorel@...e.cz>, zohar@...ux.ibm.com
Cc: dvyukov@...gle.com, ebiggers@...nel.org, jmorris@...ei.org,
keescook@...omium.org, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, serge@...lyn.com,
Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] integrity: double check iint_cache was initialized
On 2/24/2022 6:20 AM, Petr Vorel wrote:
> Hi Mimi, Tetsuo, Kees, all,
>
> FYI this commit merged as 92063f3ca73a ("integrity: double check iint_cache was initialized")
> is the reason for openSUSE distro installer going back from lsm= to deprecated
> security= when filling default grub parameters because security=apparmor or
> security=selinux does not break boot when used with ima_policy=tcb, unlike
> using lsm.
OK, color me confused. Integrity isn't an LSM. It doesn't
call security_add_hooks().
> @Kees, @Mimi sure, people who use ima_policy=tcb will just remove lsm parameter
> or add "integrity" to it but I wonder whether there could be "integrity"
> automatic inclusion when using ima_policy=tcb. Although the point of lsm= (and
> CONFIG_LSM) is to have *ordered* list of enabled LSMs and it wouldn't be clear
> on which place.
Why would adding integrity to the lsm= make sense? It's not an LSM.
Sorry, but something is wrong here.
>
> Kind regards,
> Petr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists