[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aea1e9de5120522be376e29828991f8975d3c165.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2023 08:30:16 -0500
From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...weicloud.com>,
dmitry.kasatkin@...il.com, paul@...l-moore.com, jmorris@...ei.org,
serge@...lyn.com, mic@...ikod.net
Cc: linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, keescook@...omium.org,
Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] security: Introduce LSM_ORDER_LAST and set it
for the integrity LSM
On Fri, 2023-03-10 at 09:53 +0100, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> From: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>
>
> Introduce LSM_ORDER_LAST, to satisfy the requirement of LSMs needing to be
> last, e.g. the 'integrity' LSM, without changing the kernel command line or
> configuration.
>
> Also, set this order for the 'integrity' LSM. While not enforced, this is
> the only LSM expected to use it.
>
> Similarly to LSM_ORDER_FIRST, LSMs with LSM_ORDER_LAST are always enabled
> and put at the end of the LSM list, if selected in the kernel
> configuration. Setting one of these orders alone, does not cause the LSMs
> to be selected and compiled built-in in the kernel.
>
> Finally, for LSM_ORDER_MUTABLE LSMs, set the found variable to true if an
> LSM is found, regardless of its order. In this way, the kernel would not
> wrongly report that the LSM is not built-in in the kernel if its order is
> LSM_ORDER_LAST.
>
> Fixes: 79f7865d844c ("LSM: Introduce "lsm=" for boottime LSM selection")
> Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>
Acked-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists