On 3/5/2020 10:03 AM, Stephen Smalley wrote: > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 12:35 PM Casey Schaufler <casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I believe that I have stated that order isn't my issue. >> Go first, last or as specified in the lsm list, I really >> don't care. We'll talk about what does matter in the KRSI >> thread. > Order matters when the security module logic (in this case, the BPF > program) is loaded from userspace and > the userspace process isn't already required to be fully privileged > with respect to the in-kernel security modules. > CAP_MAC_ADMIN was their (not unreasonable) attempt to check that > requirement; it just doesn't happen to convey > the same meaning for SELinux since SELinux predates the introduction > of CAP_MAC_ADMIN (in Linux at least) and > since SELinux was designed to confine even processes with capabilities. If KRSI "needs" to go last, I'm fine with that. What I continue to object to is making KRSI/BPF a special case in the code. It doesn't need to be.
