Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: [PATCH security-next v4 23/32] selinux: Remove boot parameter | From | Stephen Smalley <> | Date | Tue, 2 Oct 2018 10:58:15 -0400 |
| |
On 10/02/2018 10:44 AM, Kees Cook wrote: > On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 6:42 AM, Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov> wrote: >> On 10/02/2018 08:12 AM, Paul Moore wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 9:04 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> Since LSM enabling is now centralized with CONFIG_LSM_ENABLE and >>>> "lsm.enable=...", this removes the LSM-specific enabling logic from >>>> SELinux. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> >>>> --- >>>> .../admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt | 9 ------ >>>> security/selinux/Kconfig | 29 ------------------- >>>> security/selinux/hooks.c | 15 +--------- >>>> 3 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 52 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt >>>> b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt >>>> index cf963febebb0..0d10ab3d020e 100644 >>>> --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt >>>> +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt >>>> @@ -4045,15 +4045,6 @@ >>>> loaded. An invalid security module name will be >>>> treated >>>> as if no module has been chosen. >>>> >>>> - selinux= [SELINUX] Disable or enable SELinux at boot time. >>>> - Format: { "0" | "1" } >>>> - See security/selinux/Kconfig help text. >>>> - 0 -- disable. >>>> - 1 -- enable. >>>> - Default value is set via kernel config option. >>>> - If enabled at boot time, /selinux/disable can be >>>> used >>>> - later to disable prior to initial policy load. >>> >>> >>> No comments yet on the rest of the patchset, but the subject line of >>> this patch caught my eye and I wanted to comment quickly on this one >>> ... >>> >>> Not a fan unfortunately. >>> >>> Much like the SELinux bits under /proc/self/attr, this is a user >>> visible thing which has made its way into a lot of docs, scripts, and >>> minds; I believe removing it would be a big mistake. >> >> >> Yes, we can't suddenly break existing systems that had selinux=0 in their >> grub config. We have to retain the support. > > Is it okay to only support selinux=0 (instead of also selinux=1)?
For Fedora/RHEL kernels, selinux=1 would be redundant since it is the default. However, in other distros where SELinux is not the default, I think they have documented selinux=1 as the way to enable SELinux. So users may be relying on that as well. I don't think we can safely drop support for either one. Sorry.
|  |