On 10/12/2018 12:01 PM, Kees Cook wrote: > On Friday, October 12, 2018 3:19 AM, John Johansen > <john.johansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> It isn't perfect but it manages consistency across distros as best as >> can be achieved atm. > Yeah, this is why I'm okay with the current series: it provides as > consistent a view as possible, but leaves room for future improvements > (like adding "+" or "!" or "all" or whatever). > > I'm curious to see what SELinux folks think of v5, though. I *think* I > addressed all the concerns there, even Paul's "I want my distro > default to not have extreme stacking" case too. > > -Kees Looks like I should go on vacation more often. :) I am generally opposed to fancy specification languages. I support the explicit lsm= list specification because you don't have to know any context to create a boot line that will work, and be as close to what you've specified as possible for the kernel configuration. One need look no further than the mechanisms for setting POSIX ACLs for an example of how to ensure a feature isn't used. Had we the foresight to make security= take a list of modules when Yama was added we might have avoided some of this brouhaha, but there was no reason to expect that stacking was ever going to happen back then.
