On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 5:47 PM Song Liu <songliubraving@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> If we use lsm= to control ima and evm, we will need the following
> changes in ordered_lsm_parse(). We still need supporting logic
> in ima and evm side, so that ima and evm are only initialized
> when they are in lsm=.
>
> Does this sound the right way forward?
Have you tested it? What happens? There is value in going through
the testing process, especially if you haven't played much with the
LSM code.
I'd also want to see a comment line in both places explaining why it
is necessary to mark the LSM as enabled prior to actually adding it to
@ordered_lsms. Something along the lines of only parsing the
parameter once should be sufficient.
> diff --git i/security/security.c w/security/security.c
> index 09664e09fec9..00271be3b0c1 100644
> --- i/security/security.c
> +++ w/security/security.c
> @@ -365,6 +365,9 @@ static void __init ordered_lsm_parse(const char *order, const char *origin)
> if (strcmp(lsm->name, name) == 0) {
> if (lsm->order == LSM_ORDER_MUTABLE)
> append_ordered_lsm(lsm, origin);
> + else if (lsm->order == LSM_ORDER_LAST)
> + set_enabled(lsm, true);
> +
> found = true;
> }
> }
> @@ -386,7 +389,7 @@ static void __init ordered_lsm_parse(const char *order, const char *origin)
>
> /* LSM_ORDER_LAST is always last. */
> for (lsm = __start_lsm_info; lsm < __end_lsm_info; lsm++) {
> - if (lsm->order == LSM_ORDER_LAST)
> + if (lsm->order == LSM_ORDER_LAST && is_enabled(lsm))
> append_ordered_lsm(lsm, " last");
> }
--
paul-moore.com
