From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on archive.lwn.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=5.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by archive.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B79C7D087 for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2018 04:58:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727025AbeJELzm (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Oct 2018 07:55:42 -0400 Received: from namei.org ([65.99.196.166]:35746 "EHLO namei.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726939AbeJELzm (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Oct 2018 07:55:42 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by namei.org (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id w954wDR7011060; Fri, 5 Oct 2018 04:58:13 GMT Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 14:58:13 +1000 (AEST) From: James Morris To: Kees Cook cc: John Johansen , Jordan Glover , Stephen Smalley , Paul Moore , Casey Schaufler , Tetsuo Handa , "Schaufler, Casey" , linux-security-module , Jonathan Corbet , "open list:DOCUMENTATION" , linux-arch , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH security-next v4 23/32] selinux: Remove boot parameter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20181002005505.6112-1-keescook@chromium.org> <5955f5ce-b803-4f58-8b07-54c291e33da5@canonical.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (LRH 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-doc-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 4 Oct 2018, Kees Cook wrote: > On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 10:49 AM, James Morris 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? Not overrule, but convince. At least, deprecate selinux=1 and security=X, but not extend it any further. > > 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? > Yes, the ones they want enabled. > 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/ > I think having something like +yama will still lead to confusion. Explicitly stating each enabled LSM in order is totally unambiguous. If people are moving away from the distro defaults, and there is no high-level interface to manage this, it seems to me there's a deeper issue with the distro. -- James Morris