Is there mailist about LSM

[o@zgur.org (Ozgur Kara)]

30.05.2018, 21:08, "valdis.kletnieks at vt.edu" <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu>:
> On Wed, 30 May 2018 10:37:25 -0700, you said:
>
>> ?First, theoretical, I suppose: what were the reasons to effectively disable dynamic loading of LSM ?
>
> Because that implies the system was up without the LSM loaded - at which point
> somebody can have tampered with whatever labelling the LSM uses. So we
> insist that the LSM be brought online very early during the boot process, to make
> sure that the LSM has a chance to stop any unauthorized relabeling.
>
>> ?Second, is there a way for two or more LSMs to co-exist? After inspecting
>> ?security_module_enable() and register_security(), it doesn't seem possible,
>> ?however yama does attempt to load itself? Am I missing something?
>
> There's some support for one "large" LSM and a "trivial" one like yama.
> There's very real and nasty interactions if you try to run (for instance)
> SELinux and AppArmor at the same time. The composition of multiple
> MAC systems is fraught with danger (go back and look at how long it took
> us to get file capabilities to work right...)

SElinux and AppArmor are completely disappointing.
Really.

>