lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Oct]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH security-next v4 23/32] selinux: Remove boot parameter
On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 10:49 AM, James Morris <jmorris@namei.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Oct 2018, Kees Cook wrote:
>> Then someone boots the system with:
>>
>> selinux=1 security=selinux
>>
>> In what order does selinux get initialized relative to yama?
>> (apparmor, flagged as a "legacy major", would have been disabled by
>> the "security=" not matching it.)
>
> It doesn't, it needs to be specified in one place.
>
> Distros will need to update boot parameter handling for this kernel
> onwards. Otherwise, we will need to carry this confusing mess forward
> forever.

Are you saying that you want to overrule Paul and Stephen about
keeping "selinux=1 secuiryt=selinux" working?

>> CONFIG_LSM="yama,apparmor,!selinux"
>>
>> to mean "put selinux here in the order, but don't enable it". Then the
>> problem becomes what happens to an LSM that has been built in but not
>> listed in CONFIG_LSM?
>
> In my most recent suggestion, there is no '!' disablement, just
> enablement. If an LSM is not listed in CONFIG_LSM="", it's not enabled.

And a user would need to specify ALL lsms on the "lsm=" line?

What do you think of my latest proposal? It could happily work all
three ways: old boot params and security= work ("selinux=1
security=selinux" keeps working), individual LSM enable/disable works
("lsm=+loadpin"), and full LSM ordering works
("lsm=each,lsm,in,order,here"):

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAGXu5jJJit8bDNvgXaFkuvFPy7NWtJW2oRWFbG-6iWk0+A1qng@mail.gmail.com/

-Kees

--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-10-05 02:06    [W:0.165 / U:0.108 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site