Re: [PATCH security-next v4 23/32] selinux: Remove boot parameter

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 10/02/2018 10:44 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 6:42 AM, Stephen Smalley <sds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 10/02/2018 08:12 AM, Paul Moore wrote:

On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 9:04 PM Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Since LSM enabling is now centralized with CONFIG_LSM_ENABLE and
"lsm.enable=...", this removes the LSM-specific enabling logic from
SELinux.

Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
   .../admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt         |  9 ------
   security/selinux/Kconfig                      | 29 -------------------
   security/selinux/hooks.c                      | 15 +---------
   3 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 52 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
index cf963febebb0..0d10ab3d020e 100644
--- a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
+++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
@@ -4045,15 +4045,6 @@
                          loaded. An invalid security module name will be
treated
                          as if no module has been chosen.

-       selinux=        [SELINUX] Disable or enable SELinux at boot time.
-                       Format: { "0" | "1" }
-                       See security/selinux/Kconfig help text.
-                       0 -- disable.
-                       1 -- enable.
-                       Default value is set via kernel config option.
-                       If enabled at boot time, /selinux/disable can be
used
-                       later to disable prior to initial policy load.


No comments yet on the rest of the patchset, but the subject line of
this patch caught my eye and I wanted to comment quickly on this one
...

Not a fan unfortunately.

Much like the SELinux bits under /proc/self/attr, this is a user
visible thing which has made its way into a lot of docs, scripts, and
minds; I believe removing it would be a big mistake.


Yes, we can't suddenly break existing systems that had selinux=0 in their
grub config.  We have to retain the support.

Is it okay to only support selinux=0 (instead of also selinux=1)?

For Fedora/RHEL kernels, selinux=1 would be redundant since it is the default. However, in other distros where SELinux is not the default, I think they have documented selinux=1 as the way to enable SELinux. So users may be relying on that as well. I don't think we can safely drop support for either one. Sorry.



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Kernel Newbies]     [x86 Platform Driver]     [Netdev]     [Linux Wireless]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux Filesystems]     [Yosemite Discussion]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux