On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 6:39 PM, John Johansen <john.johansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 09/20/2018 06:10 PM, Casey Schaufler wrote: >> On 9/20/2018 5:45 PM, Kees Cook wrote: >>> On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 5:25 PM, Casey Schaufler <casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> On 9/20/2018 9:23 AM, Kees Cook wrote: >>>>> config LSM_ORDER >>>>> string "Default initialization order of builtin LSMs" >>>>> - default "yama,loadpin,integrity" >>>>> + default "yama,loadpin,integrity,selinux,smack,tomoyo,apparmor" >>>> If I want to compile all the major modules into my kernel and use >>>> AppArmor by default would I use >>>> >>>> default "yama,loadpin,integrity,apparmor,selinux,smack,tomoyo" >>>> >>>> or >>>> >>>> default "yama,loadpin,integrity,apparmor" >>> I was expecting the former, but the latter will have the same result. > > t find having the two be equivalent violates expectations. At least > when considering the end goal of full/extreme stacking, its trivially > the same with current major lsms being exclusive This mixes "enablement" with "ordering", though, and I think the past threads have shown this to be largely problematic. However, with CONFIG_LSM_ENABLED, we get the effect you're looking for, IIUC. >>>> When we have "blob-sharing" how could I compile in tomoyo, >>>> but exclude it without a boot line option? >>> Ooh, yes, this series has no way to do that. Perhaps >>> CONFIG_LSM_DISABLE in the same form as CONFIG_LSM_ORDER? I would >>> totally remove LoadPin's CONFIG for this in favor it. >> >> I would generally prefer an optional CONFIG_LSM_ENABLE to >> CONFIG_LSM_DISABLE, but I understand the logic behind your >> approach. I would be looking for something like >> > +1 on the CONFIG_LSM_ENABLE ove DISABLE > >> CONFIG LSM_ENABLE >> string "Default set of enabled LSMs" >> default "" >> >> as opposed to >> >> CONFIG LSM_DISABLE >> string "Default set of disabled LSMs" >> default "" >> >> where an empty string is interpreted as "use 'em all" >> in either case. Yes, I like CONFIG_LSM_ENABLE if "empty" means "enable all". Should CONFIG_LSM_ENABLE replace all the other CONFIG-based LSM enabling/disabling? >>>> When we have full stacking, how could I compile in selinux >>>> but exclude it? >>> Yup, same problem. Same suggested solution? >>> >>> Should lsm.enable/disable= also become a comma-separated list, or >>> should I leave it as a multi-instance thing like I have it? >> >> I prefer the multi-instance >> lsm.disable=selinux lsm.disable=yama >> to the list >> lsm.disable=selinux,yama >> >> but at this point I don't really care all that much. > > the comma separated list however is consistent with what is being > done for default order Yeah, and it would match the new CONFIG_LSM_ENABLE. FWIW, it was tedious to type "lsm.enable" and "lsm.disable" over and over when doing testing, so I almost prefer the comma separated list at the end of the day. I'll ponder this a bit. -Kees -- Kees Cook Pixel Security
