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=-0.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham 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 2D0D0C48BD3 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 03:28:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE3CE216E3 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 03:28:22 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=chromium.org header.i=@chromium.org header.b="hvAbLQyo" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726651AbfF0D2W (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jun 2019 23:28:22 -0400 Received: from mail-pf1-f195.google.com ([209.85.210.195]:44541 "EHLO mail-pf1-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726462AbfF0D2W (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jun 2019 23:28:22 -0400 Received: by mail-pf1-f195.google.com with SMTP id t16so463968pfe.11 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 20:28:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chromium.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=AJcOSikj55pyAZmz8QMWOU11RheeXmlXy+E8z7yvWs0=; b=hvAbLQyocIbxyNU5ZFgGkQWtCAH0u5k4almdJAXx3ARrzKk3Klh41muKuOBaei81A/ dr9XnOfwmiv61PHDAm5sUXh3dSawGVgIDJzbQZCxuRLARLJOwa6121+NMvaduHtzTkhr /y/4GuXMmxgvyxp61vRXshkUoxj5dfyjqySu4= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=AJcOSikj55pyAZmz8QMWOU11RheeXmlXy+E8z7yvWs0=; b=M6qmIFq5iMPDeKEi+qePsfSbi+CHEfp/642rBGbThXW6ePexvGiODx67thsin0CuiE hQCNnyI7b8dX1qE8iphH6BD+AyUxjDI2ojfnVrF8tD4DhxUdiNG2lMMian/LdZasHKOx rNRIlYVCVIJajWMjyFDeBGn6Q3RzgvCm+R0lJy3/mUvNBrKUOLMqs8/VgdjKeILMUpxI fUWp3+RWNaU/Fzr0h9nvvnS0JsokLWVZtmTZB1TmYoeOL5CRpBd94V0gs1Wk2KxgTw+4 FXrACBKTVhOiogZ75tUfIaXC/ImxDlq+ij+04qZUjjV8tnnTPZVpQEi+Kc9x3RA5kpxt oiCg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWG9gLSVEzuehvAkg7ogzfd6+xGq0MdOjp8ZeDICk3tb48O5fRG Z313RkRMyTn/Yo1Fhdltwi8CXw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwF1R1LURWstNvfQgyGXp4qSQgnnRjenc3s0CUZYJd3VbZ/aZWcB4Wo3rQv2YE2ks+bYhYeyw== X-Received: by 2002:a63:c03:: with SMTP id b3mr1535164pgl.68.1561606101474; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 20:28:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from www.outflux.net (smtp.outflux.net. [198.145.64.163]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b17sm470630pgk.85.2019.06.26.20.28.20 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Wed, 26 Jun 2019 20:28:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 20:28:19 -0700 From: Kees Cook To: James Morris Cc: Casey Schaufler , casey.schaufler@intel.com, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, selinux@vger.kernel.org, john.johansen@canonical.com, penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp, paul@paul-moore.com, sds@tycho.nsa.gov Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 23/23] AppArmor: Remove the exclusive flag Message-ID: <201906262027.26233016DB@keescook> References: <20190626192234.11725-1-casey@schaufler-ca.com> <20190626192234.11725-24-casey@schaufler-ca.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: selinux-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: selinux@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 12:22:13PM +1000, James Morris wrote: > On Wed, 26 Jun 2019, Casey Schaufler wrote: > > > With the inclusion of the "display" process attribute > > mechanism AppArmor no longer needs to be treated as an > > "exclusive" security module. Remove the flag that indicates > > it is exclusive. Remove the stub getpeersec_dgram AppArmor > > hook as it has no effect in the single LSM case and > > interferes in the multiple LSM case. > > So now if I build a kernel with SELinux and AppArmor selected, with > SELinux registered first, I now need to use apparmor=0 at the kernel > command line to preserve existing behavior (just SELinux running). > > This should at least be documented. > > I wonder if this will break existing users, though. Who has both > currently selected and depends on only one of them being active? I don't think this will change a system using SELinux, right? There would be no policy loaded for AppArmor so its hooks would be no-op. But maybe I'm not thinking hard enough? -- Kees Cook