On 5/24/2017 11:53 PM, David Howells wrote: > Casey Schaufler <casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> +#ifdef CONFIG_LOCK_DOWN_KERNEL >>> +extern bool kernel_is_locked_down(void); >>> +#else >>> +static inline bool kernel_is_locked_down(void) >> Should this be a bool or an int? I can imagine that someone is going to want >> various different degrees of lock down for kernels. As an int you could >> return a bitmap indicating which features were locked. This would allow >> additional things to be locked down without changing the interface. > At the moment it makes no difference, since the return value is only ever > passed directly to an if-statement. > > Also, do you have an idea as to how is should be divided up? You called out five distinct features in 0/5, so how about a bit for each of those? Actually, I don't care which way you go. The current code works for me. I am just concerned that the granularity fiends might come around later. > > There aren't so many cases, at least not yet, that they can't be fixed up, > perhaps with a coccinelle script. > > David > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-efi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
