On 10/02/2018 05:12 PM, Kees Cook wrote: > On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 5:05 PM, John Johansen > <john.johansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 10/02/2018 04:54 PM, Kees Cook wrote: >>> That's not how I have it currently. It's a comma-separated a string, >>> including the reserved name "all". The default would just be >>> "CONFIG_LSM_ENABLE=all". Casey and I wanted this to have a way to >>> capture new LSMs by default at build-time. >>> >> >> I understand where you are coming from, but speaking with my distro >> hat on, that is not going to work. As a distro Ubuntu very much wants >> to be able to offer all the LSMs built in to the kernel so the user >> can select them. But very much wants to be able to specify a default >> supported subset that is enabled at boot. >> >> I expect RH and Suse will feel similarily. Speaking for Ubuntu if this >> isn't available as part of lsm stacking it will get distro patched in. > > Right. Ubuntu would do something like: > > CONFIG_LSM_ENABLE=yama,apparmor,integrity > > And that's why I wanted non-explicit lsm.enable, so that an end user > could just do: > > lsm.enable=loadpin > > to add loadpin. > > Perhaps we could have both? "lsm.enable=+loadpin" (add loadpin to > build default list) vs "lsm.enable=loadpin" (override build default > list with ONLY loadpin). > Maybe? I'm not sure what the best option is with all the competing requirements/desires. I need to think about it more and would like to see what others think.
