On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 12:47 PM, John Johansen <john.johansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 10/02/2018 12:17 PM, Kees Cook wrote: >> I could define CONFIG_LSM_ENABLE as being "additive" to >> SECURITY_APPARMOR_BOOTPARAM_VALUE and >> SECURITY_SELINUX_BOOTPARAM_VALUE? > > Oh sure lets deal with my complaint about too many ways to configure > this beast by adding yet another config option :P This is what v3 already does: SEC...BOOTPARAM_VALUE trumps ...LSM_ENABLE. > seriously though, please no. That just adds another layer of confusion > even if it is only being foisted on the distro/builder You've already sent a patch removing SECURITY_APPARMOR_BOOTPARAM_VALUE. If SELinux is fine to do that too, then I think we'll be sorted out. I'll just need to make "lsm.enable=" be an explicit list. (Do you have a problem with "lsm.disable=..." ?) -Kees -- Kees Cook Pixel Security
