On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 7:14 PM, John Johansen <john.johansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 09/20/2018 07:05 PM, Kees Cook wrote: >> 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. > > no, I was just stating in a world where we have full stacking those two > are not equivalent, as I would assume the order of any lsm not listed > may end up being different. Right, the ordering would be defined first by runtime (lsm.order=) followed any missing LSMs then ordered by their order in CONFIG_LSM_ORDER=, followed by any still missing LSMs then ordered by their order at link-time (which *may* be Makefile order, but could change with LTO, etc). >>>>>> 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? > > I don't particularly like "empty" being "enable all". With that > how would I disable all builtin lsms so that I just boot with > capability. > > An option of all or even * is more explicit and leaves the empty > set to mean disable everything Okay, that works. I prefer "all" FWIW. -Kees -- Kees Cook Pixel Security
