From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Morris Subject: Re: [PATCH security-next v4 23/32] selinux: Remove boot parameter Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 04:28:07 +1000 (AEST) Message-ID: References: <20181002005505.6112-1-keescook@chromium.org> <20181002005505.6112-24-keescook@chromium.org> <785ef6a9-ae46-3533-0348-74bcf6f10928@tycho.nsa.gov> <809f1cfd-077b-ee58-51ba-b22daf46d12b@tycho.nsa.gov> <5955f5ce-b803-4f58-8b07-54c291e33da5@canonical.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Kees Cook Cc: John Johansen , Jordan Glover , Stephen Smalley , Paul Moore , Casey Schaufler , Tetsuo Handa , "Schaufler, Casey" , linux-security-module , Jonathan Corbet , "open list:DOCUMENTATION" , linux-arch , LKML List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On Wed, 3 Oct 2018, Kees Cook wrote: > On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 11:17 AM, James Morris wrote: > > On Tue, 2 Oct 2018, John Johansen wrote: > >> To me a list like > >> lsm.enable=X,Y,Z > > > > What about even simpler: > > > > lsm=selinux,!apparmor,yama > > We're going to have lsm.order=, so I'd like to keep it with a dot > separator (this makes it more like module parameters, too). You want > to mix enable/disable in the same string? That implies you'd want > implicit enabling (i.e. it complements the builtin enabling), which is > opposite from what John wanted. > Why can't this be the order as well? -- James Morris From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from namei.org ([65.99.196.166]:35448 "EHLO namei.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726998AbeJDBRv (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Oct 2018 21:17:51 -0400 Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 04:28:07 +1000 (AEST) From: James Morris Subject: Re: [PATCH security-next v4 23/32] selinux: Remove boot parameter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20181002005505.6112-1-keescook@chromium.org> <20181002005505.6112-24-keescook@chromium.org> <785ef6a9-ae46-3533-0348-74bcf6f10928@tycho.nsa.gov> <809f1cfd-077b-ee58-51ba-b22daf46d12b@tycho.nsa.gov> <5955f5ce-b803-4f58-8b07-54c291e33da5@canonical.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Kees Cook Cc: John Johansen , Jordan Glover , Stephen Smalley , Paul Moore , Casey Schaufler , Tetsuo Handa , "Schaufler, Casey" , linux-security-module , Jonathan Corbet , "open list:DOCUMENTATION" , linux-arch , LKML Message-ID: <20181003182807.zi34-MrfXjVoIIL3Mkf7ZTRELxSW7gaZ6Ea13RHGNcw@z> On Wed, 3 Oct 2018, Kees Cook wrote: > On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 11:17 AM, James Morris wrote: > > On Tue, 2 Oct 2018, John Johansen wrote: > >> To me a list like > >> lsm.enable=X,Y,Z > > > > What about even simpler: > > > > lsm=selinux,!apparmor,yama > > We're going to have lsm.order=, so I'd like to keep it with a dot > separator (this makes it more like module parameters, too). You want > to mix enable/disable in the same string? That implies you'd want > implicit enabling (i.e. it complements the builtin enabling), which is > opposite from what John wanted. > Why can't this be the order as well? -- James Morris