From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2ABEC7618F for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 20:50:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9768D21900 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 20:50:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727743AbfGVUum (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Jul 2019 16:50:42 -0400 Received: from namei.org ([65.99.196.166]:36578 "EHLO namei.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727164AbfGVUul (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Jul 2019 16:50:41 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by namei.org (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x6MKoZxs021586; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 20:50:35 GMT Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 06:50:35 +1000 (AEST) From: James Morris To: Paul Moore cc: Casey Schaufler , Steve Grubb , Richard Guy Briggs , "linux-audit@redhat.com" , Linux Security Module list Subject: Re: Preferred subj= with multiple LSMs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <2517266.eHZzEmjMsX@x2> <27e2c710-efe6-d9cd-d4f9-bc217df5ede3@schaufler-ca.com> <5ea2a25b-364f-3c30-79c6-cfb18515d7ba@schaufler-ca.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (LRH 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Fri, 19 Jul 2019, Paul Moore wrote: > > We've never had to think about having general rules on > > what security modules do before, because with only one > > active each could do whatever it wanted without fear of > > conflict. If there is already a character that none of > > the existing modules use, how would it be wrong to > > reserve it? > > "We've never had to think about having general rules on what security > modules do before..." > > We famously haven't imposed restrictions on the label format before > now, and this seems like a pretty poor reason to start. Agreed. -- James Morris