On Thu, 2023-03-09 at 18:44 -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 3:55 AM Roberto Sassu
> <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > From: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Introduce LSM_ORDER_LAST, to satisfy the requirement of LSMs needing to be
> > last, e.g. the 'integrity' LSM, without changing the kernel command line or
> > configuration.
> >
> > 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.
>
> Since you are respinning this patchset anyway, I might make it clear
> that the LSM_ORDER_LAST LSMs are always enabled only when they are
> enabled at kernel configure/build time. Simply marking a LSM as
> LSM_ORDER_LAST does not mean you don't have to explicitly select the
> LSM in the rest of the Kconfig.
Ok, yes, better to clarify.
Thanks
Roberto
> > 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>
> > ---
> > include/linux/lsm_hooks.h | 1 +
> > security/integrity/iint.c | 1 +
> > security/security.c | 12 +++++++++---
> > 3 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
