From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-yb1-f195.google.com ([209.85.219.195]:38020 "EHLO
        mail-yb1-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1727029AbeINFSG (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 14 Sep 2018 01:18:06 -0400
Received: by mail-yb1-f195.google.com with SMTP id e18-v6so4069631ybq.5
        for <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>; Thu, 13 Sep 2018 17:06:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yb1-f177.google.com (mail-yb1-f177.google.com. [209.85.219.177])
        by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z7-v6sm7953282ywz.21.2018.09.13.17.06.17
        for <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>
        (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
        Thu, 13 Sep 2018 17:06:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yb1-f177.google.com with SMTP id t10-v6so4088342ybb.1
        for <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>; Thu, 13 Sep 2018 17:06:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <a2ffa6b7-5d05-39a1-11c3-d715566e4d51@schaufler-ca.com>
References: <cbf848ae-a1ac-c5ab-f23b-bc9217fceebe@schaufler-ca.com>
 <99cb1ae7-8881-eb9a-a8cb-a787abe454e1@schaufler-ca.com> <CAGXu5jLONSfPHYYYTLSma-+arVHSQKaEWb9JxpOn6TNKtyLNhw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHC9VhQN0wq0zZS5BYU9jBomaWvCaJ_BqJjHF3AT7FG8Z0nLDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGXu5jJs6kmd6Tjgwqb2Zx7e-jNbHqfJ57poZuyz4Qj=AKVfmQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHC9VhQ20tBAMwOJ9mg0tBHYUoxjh0Szr3d62HuPw2SyT4XDLw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGXu5jKec1JTsoqwKGThcJoamdL618AHu4jfFbqqQiauz1kjyg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHC9VhQwT4d3wC37cVrrX-hZq1L3e6=TEAse4m-YH9SiFnkieA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGXu5jLapViSK-j08Tq8cCZodiZXFsXze71xFPg6MQhDWDHDAA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGXu5j+j47FH5RF2vrJh95=YFX76oSBFo8O6GZqa0utcfE1AVA@mail.gmail.com>
 <0eb75e66-ed50-4013-6440-38bc2f814c6f@canonical.com> <CAGXu5jKZ7rquTux5fS+5tQ==0w_9rDTRaJWS_mS7C+Fy2dXRRQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <a2ffa6b7-5d05-39a1-11c3-d715566e4d51@schaufler-ca.com>
From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2018 17:06:16 -0700
Message-ID: <CAGXu5j+PhwfRCg5PycrE-JReVxKMduGsoXStWZN6PfYB-NB1og@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/10] LSM: Blob sharing support for S.A.R.A and LandLock
To: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
Cc: John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com>,
        Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>,
        linux-security-module <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
        James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        SE Linux <selinux@tycho.nsa.gov>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>,
        Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>,
        "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
        "Schaufler, Casey" <casey.schaufler@intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 5:03 PM, Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote:
> On 9/13/2018 4:51 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>> So, before we can really make a decision, I think we have to decide:
>> should ordering be arbitrary for even this level of stacking?
>
> Do we have a case where it matters? I know that I could write a
> module that would have issues if one hook got called and another
> didn't because because a precursor module hook failed. I don't
> think that any of the existing modules have this problem.

FWIW, I prefer having explicit ordering that cannot be changed at
runtime. I'm just concerned about painting ourselves (further) into a
corner with security= suddenly gaining ordering semantics, but maybe I
can just ignore this and we can point and laugh at anyone who gets
burned by some future change to making it order-sensitive. :)

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security