From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Smalley Subject: Re: [PATCH security-next v4 23/32] selinux: Remove boot parameter Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2018 10:58:15 -0400 Message-ID: <809f1cfd-077b-ee58-51ba-b22daf46d12b@tycho.nsa.gov> References: <20181002005505.6112-1-keescook@chromium.org> <20181002005505.6112-24-keescook@chromium.org> <785ef6a9-ae46-3533-0348-74bcf6f10928@tycho.nsa.gov> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Kees Cook Cc: Paul Moore , James Morris , Casey Schaufler , John Johansen , Tetsuo Handa , "Schaufler, Casey" , linux-security-module , Jonathan Corbet , "open list:DOCUMENTATION" , linux-arch , LKML List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On 10/02/2018 10:44 AM, Kees Cook wrote: > On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 6:42 AM, Stephen Smalley wrote: >> On 10/02/2018 08:12 AM, Paul Moore wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 9:04 PM Kees Cook wrote: >>>> >>>> Since LSM enabling is now centralized with CONFIG_LSM_ENABLE and >>>> "lsm.enable=...", this removes the LSM-specific enabling logic from >>>> SELinux. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook >>>> --- >>>> .../admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt | 9 ------ >>>> security/selinux/Kconfig | 29 ------------------- >>>> security/selinux/hooks.c | 15 +--------- >>>> 3 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 52 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt >>>> b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt >>>> index cf963febebb0..0d10ab3d020e 100644 >>>> --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt >>>> +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt >>>> @@ -4045,15 +4045,6 @@ >>>> loaded. An invalid security module name will be >>>> treated >>>> as if no module has been chosen. >>>> >>>> - selinux= [SELINUX] Disable or enable SELinux at boot time. >>>> - Format: { "0" | "1" } >>>> - See security/selinux/Kconfig help text. >>>> - 0 -- disable. >>>> - 1 -- enable. >>>> - Default value is set via kernel config option. >>>> - If enabled at boot time, /selinux/disable can be >>>> used >>>> - later to disable prior to initial policy load. >>> >>> >>> No comments yet on the rest of the patchset, but the subject line of >>> this patch caught my eye and I wanted to comment quickly on this one >>> ... >>> >>> Not a fan unfortunately. >>> >>> Much like the SELinux bits under /proc/self/attr, this is a user >>> visible thing which has made its way into a lot of docs, scripts, and >>> minds; I believe removing it would be a big mistake. >> >> >> Yes, we can't suddenly break existing systems that had selinux=0 in their >> grub config. We have to retain the support. > > Is it okay to only support selinux=0 (instead of also selinux=1)? For Fedora/RHEL kernels, selinux=1 would be redundant since it is the default. However, in other distros where SELinux is not the default, I think they have documented selinux=1 as the way to enable SELinux. So users may be relying on that as well. I don't think we can safely drop support for either one. Sorry. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ucol19pa14.eemsg.mail.mil ([214.24.24.87]:5229 "EHLO ucol19pa14.eemsg.mail.mil" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726906AbeJBVkb (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Oct 2018 17:40:31 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH security-next v4 23/32] selinux: Remove boot parameter References: <20181002005505.6112-1-keescook@chromium.org> <20181002005505.6112-24-keescook@chromium.org> <785ef6a9-ae46-3533-0348-74bcf6f10928@tycho.nsa.gov> From: Stephen Smalley Message-ID: <809f1cfd-077b-ee58-51ba-b22daf46d12b@tycho.nsa.gov> Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2018 10:58:15 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Kees Cook Cc: Paul Moore , James Morris , Casey Schaufler , John Johansen , Tetsuo Handa , "Schaufler, Casey" , linux-security-module , Jonathan Corbet , "open list:DOCUMENTATION" , linux-arch , LKML Message-ID: <20181002145815.NyVqRWvYXwSDW4sSVNhWHkClUPz70hXQ_YPsDcoBu7s@z> On 10/02/2018 10:44 AM, Kees Cook wrote: > On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 6:42 AM, Stephen Smalley wrote: >> On 10/02/2018 08:12 AM, Paul Moore wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 9:04 PM Kees Cook wrote: >>>> >>>> Since LSM enabling is now centralized with CONFIG_LSM_ENABLE and >>>> "lsm.enable=...", this removes the LSM-specific enabling logic from >>>> SELinux. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook >>>> --- >>>> .../admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt | 9 ------ >>>> security/selinux/Kconfig | 29 ------------------- >>>> security/selinux/hooks.c | 15 +--------- >>>> 3 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 52 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt >>>> b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt >>>> index cf963febebb0..0d10ab3d020e 100644 >>>> --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt >>>> +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt >>>> @@ -4045,15 +4045,6 @@ >>>> loaded. An invalid security module name will be >>>> treated >>>> as if no module has been chosen. >>>> >>>> - selinux= [SELINUX] Disable or enable SELinux at boot time. >>>> - Format: { "0" | "1" } >>>> - See security/selinux/Kconfig help text. >>>> - 0 -- disable. >>>> - 1 -- enable. >>>> - Default value is set via kernel config option. >>>> - If enabled at boot time, /selinux/disable can be >>>> used >>>> - later to disable prior to initial policy load. >>> >>> >>> No comments yet on the rest of the patchset, but the subject line of >>> this patch caught my eye and I wanted to comment quickly on this one >>> ... >>> >>> Not a fan unfortunately. >>> >>> Much like the SELinux bits under /proc/self/attr, this is a user >>> visible thing which has made its way into a lot of docs, scripts, and >>> minds; I believe removing it would be a big mistake. >> >> >> Yes, we can't suddenly break existing systems that had selinux=0 in their >> grub config. We have to retain the support. > > Is it okay to only support selinux=0 (instead of also selinux=1)? For Fedora/RHEL kernels, selinux=1 would be redundant since it is the default. However, in other distros where SELinux is not the default, I think they have documented selinux=1 as the way to enable SELinux. So users may be relying on that as well. I don't think we can safely drop support for either one. Sorry.