From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-yw1-f67.google.com ([209.85.161.67]:39479 "EHLO mail-yw1-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726868AbeINFa5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Sep 2018 01:30:57 -0400 Received: by mail-yw1-f67.google.com with SMTP id m62-v6so1951313ywd.6 for ; Thu, 13 Sep 2018 17:19:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yw1-f48.google.com (mail-yw1-f48.google.com. [209.85.161.48]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k184-v6sm2965541ywc.62.2018.09.13.17.19.05 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 13 Sep 2018 17:19:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yw1-f48.google.com with SMTP id n21-v6so1951232ywh.5 for ; Thu, 13 Sep 2018 17:19:05 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5b983bba-049c-795a-3354-a2e8ab33cecf@schaufler-ca.com> References: <99cb1ae7-8881-eb9a-a8cb-a787abe454e1@schaufler-ca.com> <5b983bba-049c-795a-3354-a2e8ab33cecf@schaufler-ca.com> From: Kees Cook Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2018 17:19:04 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/10] LSM: Blob sharing support for S.A.R.A and LandLock To: Casey Schaufler Cc: Paul Moore , linux-security-module , James Morris , LKML , SE Linux , John Johansen , Tetsuo Handa , Stephen Smalley , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , Alexey Dobriyan , "Schaufler, Casey" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 5:08 PM, Casey Schaufler wrote: > On 9/13/2018 4:57 PM, Kees Cook wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Casey Schaufler wrote: >>> On 9/13/2018 4:06 PM, Kees Cook wrote: >>>> - what order should any stacking happen? Makefile? security=? >>> Makefile by default. >> Okay, if ordering is by Makefile and everyone dislikes my >> $lsm.enabled=0/1 thing, then these mean the same thing: >> >> security=selinux,tomoyo >> security=tomoyo,selinux >> >> i.e. order of security= is _ignored_ in favor of the Makefile ordering. > > No, I think that the two lines above should have a different > execution order. If we really need to specify multiple modules > at boot time that is what makes the most sense. > > It's a matter of mechanics and probably another pass during the > init process, but it's doable. If we determine it's necessary for > this stage it is just work. We already have the minor LSMs that cannot change order. They aren't part of security= parsing either. To enable/disable LoadPin, you do "loadpin.enabled=1/0" separate from "security=". Should "blob-sharing" LSMs be like major LSMs or minor LSMs? If someone is booting with "security=selinux,tomoyo" and then SARA lands upstream, does that person have to explicitly add "sara" to their boot args, since they're doing a non-default list of LSMs? (I actually prefer the answer being "yes" here, FWIW, I just want to nail down the expectations.) -Kees -- Kees Cook Pixel Security