On Wed, 2023-03-08 at 19:23 -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Wed, 2023-03-08 at 18:11 +0100, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> > From: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Introduce LSM_ORDER_LAST, to satisfy the requirement of LSMs willing to be
> > the last, e.g. the 'integrity' LSM, without changing the kernel command
> > line or configuration.
>
> ^needing to be last
Ok.
> > Also, set this order for the 'integrity' LSM. While not enforced, this is
> > the only LSM expected to use it.
> >
> > Similarly to LSM_ORDER_FIRST, LSMs with LSM_ORDER_LAST are always enabled
> > and put at the end of the LSM list.
> >
> > Finally, for LSM_ORDER_MUTABLE LSMs, set the found variable to true if an
> > LSM is found, regardless of its order. In this way, the kernel would not
> > wrongly report that the LSM is not built-in in the kernel if its order is
> > LSM_ORDER_LAST.
> >
> > Fixes: 79f7865d844c ("LSM: Introduce "lsm=" for boottime LSM selection")
> > Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Thanks, Roberto. With this patch, 'integrity' can be safely removed
> from CONFIG_LSM definitions.
Perfect, will add the new patch.
Thanks
Roberto
