On Tue, 2 Oct 2018, John Johansen wrote: > To me a list like > lsm.enable=X,Y,Z What about even simpler: lsm=selinux,!apparmor,yama > > is best as a single explicit enable list, and it would be best to avoid > lsm.disable as it just introduces confusion. > > I do think per-LSM bootparams looses the advantages of centralization, > and still requires the user to know some Kconfig info but it also gets > rid of the lsm.disable confusion. > > With ordering separated out from being enabled there is a certain > cleanness to it. And perhaps most users are looking to enable/disable > a single lsm, instead of specifying exactly what security they want > on their system. > > If we were to go this route I would rather drop the lsm. prefix > > > > I think the current proposal (in the other thread) is likely the > > sanest approach: > > > > - Drop CONFIG_SECURITY_SELINUX_BOOTPARAM_VALUE > > - Drop CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR_BOOTPARAM_VALUE > > - All enabled LSMs are listed at build-time in CONFIG_LSM_ENABLE > > Hrrmmm isn't this a Kconfig selectable list, with each built-in LSM > available to be enabled by default at boot. > > > - Boot time enabling for selinux= and apparmor= remain > > - lsm.enable= is explicit: overrides above and omissions are disabled > wfm > > > - maybe include lsm.disable= to disable anything > -- James Morris <jmorris@xxxxxxxxx>
