From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com>,
Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>,
Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
Jordan Glover <Golden_Miller83@protonmail.ch>,
LSM <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH security-next v5 12/30] LSM: Provide separate ordered initialization
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2018 13:49:09 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jKM_goC2519EXZu7Bh0VoW8jQeR=AJ0XovUPe4_635XNw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1541182406.20901.31.camel@linux.ibm.com>
On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 11:13 AM, Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> I don't recall why "integrity" is on the security_initcall, while both
> IMA and EVM are on the late_initcall().
It's because integrity needs to have a VFS buffer allocated extremely
early, so it used the security init to do it. While it's not an LSM,
it does use this part of LSM infrastructure. I didn't see an obvious
alternative at the time, but now that I think about it, maybe just a
simple postcore_initcall() would work?
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-11-02 20:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 57+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-10-11 0:18 [PATCH security-next v5 00/30] LSM: Explict ordering Kees Cook
2018-10-11 0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v5 01/30] LSM: Correctly announce start of LSM initialization Kees Cook
2018-10-11 0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v5 02/30] vmlinux.lds.h: Avoid copy/paste of security_init section Kees Cook
2018-10-11 0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v5 03/30] LSM: Rename .security_initcall section to .lsm_info Kees Cook
2018-10-11 0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v5 04/30] LSM: Remove initcall tracing Kees Cook
2018-10-11 0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v5 05/30] LSM: Convert from initcall to struct lsm_info Kees Cook
2018-10-11 0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v5 06/30] vmlinux.lds.h: Move LSM_TABLE into INIT_DATA Kees Cook
2018-10-11 0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v5 07/30] LSM: Convert security_initcall() into DEFINE_LSM() Kees Cook
2018-10-11 0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v5 08/30] LSM: Record LSM name in struct lsm_info Kees Cook
2018-10-11 0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v5 09/30] LSM: Provide init debugging infrastructure Kees Cook
2018-10-11 0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v5 10/30] LSM: Don't ignore initialization failures Kees Cook
2018-10-11 0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v5 11/30] LSM: Introduce LSM_FLAG_LEGACY_MAJOR Kees Cook
2018-10-11 0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v5 12/30] LSM: Provide separate ordered initialization Kees Cook
2018-11-02 18:13 ` Mimi Zohar
2018-11-02 20:49 ` Kees Cook [this message]
2018-11-05 14:13 ` Mimi Zohar
2018-10-11 0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v5 13/30] LoadPin: Rename boot param "enabled" to "enforce" Kees Cook
2018-10-11 0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v5 14/30] LSM: Plumb visibility into optional "enabled" state Kees Cook
2018-10-11 0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v5 15/30] LSM: Lift LSM selection out of individual LSMs Kees Cook
2018-10-11 0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v5 16/30] LSM: Build ordered list of LSMs to initialize Kees Cook
2018-10-11 0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v5 17/30] LSM: Introduce CONFIG_LSM Kees Cook
2018-10-11 0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v5 18/30] LSM: Introduce "lsm=" for boottime LSM selection Kees Cook
2018-10-11 0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v5 19/30] LSM: Tie enabling logic to presence in ordered list Kees Cook
2018-10-11 0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v5 20/30] LSM: Prepare for reorganizing "security=" logic Kees Cook
2018-10-11 0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v5 21/30] LSM: Refactor "security=" in terms of enable/disable Kees Cook
2018-10-11 0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v5 22/30] LSM: Separate idea of "major" LSM from "exclusive" LSM Kees Cook
2018-10-11 0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v5 23/30] apparmor: Remove SECURITY_APPARMOR_BOOTPARAM_VALUE Kees Cook
2018-10-11 0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v5 24/30] selinux: Remove SECURITY_SELINUX_BOOTPARAM_VALUE Kees Cook
2018-10-11 0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v5 25/30] LSM: Add all exclusive LSMs to ordered initialization Kees Cook
2018-10-11 0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v5 26/30] LSM: Split LSM preparation from initialization Kees Cook
2018-10-11 0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v5 27/30] LoadPin: Initialize as ordered LSM Kees Cook
2018-10-11 0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v5 28/30] Yama: " Kees Cook
2018-10-11 0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v5 29/30] LSM: Introduce enum lsm_order Kees Cook
2018-10-11 0:18 ` [PATCH security-next v5 30/30] capability: Initialize as LSM_ORDER_FIRST Kees Cook
2018-10-11 3:45 ` [PATCH security-next v5 00/30] LSM: Explict ordering James Morris
2018-10-11 15:14 ` Kees Cook
2018-10-11 15:52 ` James Morris
2018-10-11 17:57 ` Kees Cook
2018-10-11 22:58 ` Jordan Glover
2018-10-11 23:09 ` Kees Cook
2018-10-11 23:48 ` John Johansen
2018-10-12 0:11 ` Jordan Glover
2018-10-12 1:19 ` John Johansen
2018-10-12 11:31 ` Jordan Glover
2018-10-12 18:24 ` John Johansen
2018-10-12 19:01 ` Kees Cook
2018-10-23 16:48 ` Casey Schaufler
2018-10-23 18:50 ` Kees Cook
2018-10-23 19:05 ` Casey Schaufler
2018-10-24 8:56 ` Casey Schaufler
2018-10-24 20:12 ` Kees Cook
2018-11-14 21:04 ` Casey Schaufler
2018-11-20 23:36 ` Casey Schaufler
2018-10-11 23:53 ` Jordan Glover
2018-10-12 0:26 ` John Johansen
2018-10-12 11:31 ` Jordan Glover
2018-10-12 18:11 ` John Johansen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAGXu5jKM_goC2519EXZu7Bh0VoW8jQeR=AJ0XovUPe4_635XNw@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=Golden_Miller83@protonmail.ch \
--cc=casey@schaufler-ca.com \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=john.johansen@canonical.com \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paul@paul-moore.com \
--cc=penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp \
--cc=rdunlap@infradead.org \
--cc=sds@tycho.nsa.gov \
--cc=zohar@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).