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. > >>>>> 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 > >>>>> 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 >