From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
To: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, selinux@vger.kernel.org
Cc: "John Johansen" <john.johansen@canonical.com>,
"Roberto Sassu" <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>,
"Fan Wu" <wufan@kernel.org>, "Mickaël Salaün" <mic@digikod.net>,
"Günther Noack" <gnoack@google.com>,
"Kees Cook" <kees@kernel.org>,
"Micah Morton" <mortonm@chromium.org>,
"Casey Schaufler" <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
"Tetsuo Handa" <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
"Nicolas Bouchinet" <nicolas.bouchinet@oss.cyber.gouv.fr>,
"Xiu Jianfeng" <xiujianfeng@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 15/34] lsm: rename/rework ordered_lsm_parse() to lsm_order_parse()
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2025 07:29:15 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8b560b9522c1c42e26a108e2f9b2977901d73649.camel@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250916220355.252592-51-paul@paul-moore.com>
On Tue, 2025-09-16 at 18:03 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> Rename ordered_lsm_parse() to lsm_order_parse() for the sake of
> consistency with the other LSM initialization routines, and also
> do some minor rework of the function. Aside from some minor style
> decisions, the majority of the rework involved shuffling the order
> of the LSM_FLAG_LEGACY and LSM_ORDER_FIRST code so that the
> LSM_FLAG_LEGACY checks are handled first; it is important to note
> that this doesn't affect the order in which the LSMs are registered.
>
> Reviewed-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
> Reviewed-by: John Johansen <john.johhansen@canonical.com>
> Signed-off-by: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
> ---
> security/lsm_init.c | 82 ++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------
> 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 45 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/security/lsm_init.c b/security/lsm_init.c
> index a314484d7c2f..7b2491120fc8 100644
> --- a/security/lsm_init.c
> +++ b/security/lsm_init.c
> @@ -228,83 +228,75 @@ static void __init initialize_lsm(struct lsm_info *lsm)
> }
> }
>
> -/* Populate ordered LSMs list from comma-separated LSM name list. */
> -static void __init ordered_lsm_parse(const char *order, const char *origin)
> +/**
> + * lsm_order_parse - Parse the comma delimited LSM list
> + * @list: LSM list
> + * @src: source of the list
> + */
> +static void __init lsm_order_parse(const char *list, const char *src)
> {
> struct lsm_info *lsm;
> char *sep, *name, *next;
>
> - /* LSM_ORDER_FIRST is always first. */
> - lsm_for_each_raw(lsm) {
> - if (lsm->order == LSM_ORDER_FIRST)
> - lsm_order_append(lsm, " first");
> - }
> -
> - /* Process "security=", if given. */
> + /* Handle any Legacy LSM exclusions if one was specified. */
> if (lsm_order_legacy) {
> - struct lsm_info *major;
> -
> /*
> - * To match the original "security=" behavior, this
> - * explicitly does NOT fallback to another Legacy Major
> - * if the selected one was separately disabled: disable
> - * all non-matching Legacy Major LSMs.
> + * To match the original "security=" behavior, this explicitly
> + * does NOT fallback to another Legacy Major if the selected
> + * one was separately disabled: disable all non-matching
> + * Legacy Major LSMs.
> */
> - lsm_for_each_raw(major) {
> - if ((major->flags & LSM_FLAG_LEGACY_MAJOR) &&
> - strcmp(major->id->name, lsm_order_legacy) != 0) {
> - lsm_enabled_set(major, false);
> + lsm_for_each_raw(lsm) {
> + if ((lsm->flags & LSM_FLAG_LEGACY_MAJOR) &&
> + strcmp(lsm->id->name, lsm_order_legacy)) {
> + lsm_enabled_set(lsm, false);
> init_debug("security=%s disabled: %s (only one legacy major LSM)\n",
> - lsm_order_legacy, major->id->name);
> + lsm_order_legacy, lsm->id->name);
> }
> }
> }
>
> - sep = kstrdup(order, GFP_KERNEL);
> + /* LSM_ORDER_FIRST */
> + lsm_for_each_raw(lsm) {
> + if (lsm->order == LSM_ORDER_FIRST)
> + lsm_order_append(lsm, "first");
> + }
> +
> + /* Normal or "mutable" LSMs */
Paul, there's a reason for another set of eyes reviewing patches and yes, even,
comments. What are "mutable" LSMs?!
The above comment LSM_ORDER_FIRST is self describing. Here the word "order" is
missing from this comment.
-> Normal or "mutable" LSM ordering
Otherwise, Reviewed-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
> + sep = kstrdup(list, GFP_KERNEL);
> next = sep;
> /* Walk the list, looking for matching LSMs. */
> while ((name = strsep(&next, ",")) != NULL) {
> - bool found = false;
> -
> lsm_for_each_raw(lsm) {
> - if (strcmp(lsm->id->name, name) == 0) {
> - if (lsm->order == LSM_ORDER_MUTABLE)
> - lsm_order_append(lsm, origin);
> - found = true;
> - }
> + if (!strcmp(lsm->id->name, name) &&
> + lsm->order == LSM_ORDER_MUTABLE)
> + lsm_order_append(lsm, src);
> }
> -
> - if (!found)
> - init_debug("%s ignored: %s (not built into kernel)\n",
> - origin, name);
> }
> + kfree(sep);
>
> - /* Process "security=", if given. */
> + /* Legacy LSM if specified. */
> if (lsm_order_legacy) {
> lsm_for_each_raw(lsm) {
> - if (lsm_order_exists(lsm))
> - continue;
> - if (strcmp(lsm->id->name, lsm_order_legacy) == 0)
> - lsm_order_append(lsm, "security=");
> + if (!strcmp(lsm->id->name, lsm_order_legacy))
> + lsm_order_append(lsm, src);
> }
> }
>
> - /* LSM_ORDER_LAST is always last. */
> + /* LSM_ORDER_LAST */
> lsm_for_each_raw(lsm) {
> if (lsm->order == LSM_ORDER_LAST)
> - lsm_order_append(lsm, " last");
> + lsm_order_append(lsm, "last");
> }
>
> - /* Disable all LSMs not in the ordered list. */
> + /* Disable all LSMs not previously enabled. */
> lsm_for_each_raw(lsm) {
> if (lsm_order_exists(lsm))
> continue;
> lsm_enabled_set(lsm, false);
> init_debug("%s skipped: %s (not in requested order)\n",
> - origin, lsm->id->name);
> + src, lsm->id->name);
> }
> -
> - kfree(sep);
> }
>
> /**
> @@ -322,9 +314,9 @@ static void __init lsm_init_ordered(void)
> lsm_order_legacy, lsm_order_cmdline);
> lsm_order_legacy = NULL;
> }
> - ordered_lsm_parse(lsm_order_cmdline, "cmdline");
> + lsm_order_parse(lsm_order_cmdline, "cmdline");
> } else
> - ordered_lsm_parse(lsm_order_builtin, "builtin");
> + lsm_order_parse(lsm_order_builtin, "builtin");
>
> lsm_order_for_each(lsm) {
> lsm_prepare(*lsm);
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-09-18 11:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 69+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-09-16 22:03 [PATCH v4 0/34] Rework the LSM initialization Paul Moore
2025-09-16 22:03 ` [PATCH v4 01/34] lsm: split the notifier code out into lsm_notifier.c Paul Moore
2025-09-19 10:44 ` Mimi Zohar
2025-09-16 22:03 ` [PATCH v4 02/34] lsm: split the init code out into lsm_init.c Paul Moore
2025-09-19 10:45 ` Mimi Zohar
2025-09-16 22:03 ` [PATCH v4 03/34] lsm: consolidate lsm_allowed() and prepare_lsm() into lsm_prepare() Paul Moore
2025-09-19 10:45 ` Mimi Zohar
2025-09-16 22:03 ` [PATCH v4 04/34] lsm: introduce looping macros for the initialization code Paul Moore
2025-09-19 10:45 ` Mimi Zohar
2025-09-16 22:03 ` [PATCH v4 05/34] lsm: integrate report_lsm_order() code into caller Paul Moore
2025-09-19 10:45 ` Mimi Zohar
2025-09-16 22:03 ` [PATCH v4 06/34] lsm: integrate lsm_early_cred() and lsm_early_task() " Paul Moore
2025-09-19 10:45 ` Mimi Zohar
2025-09-16 22:03 ` [PATCH v4 07/34] lsm: rename ordered_lsm_init() to lsm_init_ordered() Paul Moore
2025-09-19 10:45 ` Mimi Zohar
2025-09-16 22:03 ` [PATCH v4 08/34] lsm: replace the name field with a pointer to the lsm_id struct Paul Moore
2025-09-19 19:02 ` Mimi Zohar
2025-09-16 22:03 ` [PATCH v4 09/34] lsm: rename the lsm order variables for consistency Paul Moore
2025-09-19 19:02 ` Mimi Zohar
2025-09-16 22:03 ` [PATCH v4 10/34] lsm: rework lsm_active_cnt and lsm_idlist[] Paul Moore
2025-09-19 19:02 ` Mimi Zohar
2025-09-16 22:03 ` [PATCH v4 11/34] lsm: get rid of the lsm_names list and do some cleanup Paul Moore
2025-09-19 19:15 ` Mimi Zohar
2025-09-21 19:23 ` Paul Moore
2025-09-22 10:52 ` Mimi Zohar
2025-09-22 21:52 ` Paul Moore
2025-09-16 22:03 ` [PATCH v4 12/34] lsm: rework the LSM enable/disable setter/getter functions Paul Moore
2025-09-19 19:04 ` Mimi Zohar
2025-09-16 22:03 ` [PATCH v4 13/34] lsm: rename exists_ordered_lsm() to lsm_order_exists() Paul Moore
2025-09-19 19:05 ` Mimi Zohar
2025-09-16 22:03 ` [PATCH v4 14/34] lsm: rename/rework append_ordered_lsm() into lsm_order_append() Paul Moore
2025-09-16 22:03 ` [PATCH v4 15/34] lsm: rename/rework ordered_lsm_parse() to lsm_order_parse() Paul Moore
2025-09-18 11:29 ` Mimi Zohar [this message]
2025-09-18 15:38 ` Paul Moore
2025-09-18 15:55 ` Mimi Zohar
2025-09-16 22:03 ` [PATCH v4 16/34] lsm: cleanup the LSM blob size code Paul Moore
2025-09-18 15:14 ` Mimi Zohar
2025-09-16 22:03 ` [PATCH v4 17/34] lsm: cleanup initialize_lsm() and rename to lsm_init_single() Paul Moore
2025-09-18 15:28 ` Mimi Zohar
2025-09-16 22:03 ` [PATCH v4 18/34] lsm: fold lsm_init_ordered() into security_init() Paul Moore
2025-09-16 22:03 ` [PATCH v4 19/34] lsm: add/tweak function header comment blocks in lsm_init.c Paul Moore
2025-09-16 22:03 ` [PATCH v4 20/34] lsm: cleanup the debug and console output " Paul Moore
2025-09-18 15:50 ` Mimi Zohar
2025-09-18 15:54 ` Paul Moore
2025-09-16 22:03 ` [PATCH v4 21/34] lsm: output available LSMs when debugging Paul Moore
2025-09-18 17:11 ` Mimi Zohar
2025-09-16 22:03 ` [PATCH v4 22/34] lsm: group lsm_order_parse() with the other lsm_order_*() functions Paul Moore
2025-09-18 17:22 ` Mimi Zohar
2025-09-16 22:03 ` [PATCH v4 23/34] lsm: introduce an initcall mechanism into the LSM framework Paul Moore
2025-09-18 17:19 ` Mimi Zohar
2025-09-16 22:03 ` [PATCH v4 24/34] loadpin: move initcalls to " Paul Moore
2025-09-18 11:15 ` Mimi Zohar
2025-09-18 15:27 ` Paul Moore
2025-09-16 22:03 ` [PATCH v4 25/34] ipe: " Paul Moore
2025-09-16 22:03 ` [PATCH v4 26/34] smack: " Paul Moore
2025-09-16 22:03 ` [PATCH v4 27/34] tomoyo: " Paul Moore
2025-09-16 22:03 ` [PATCH v4 28/34] safesetid: " Paul Moore
2025-09-16 22:03 ` [PATCH v4 29/34] apparmor: " Paul Moore
2025-09-16 22:03 ` [PATCH v4 30/34] lockdown: " Paul Moore
2025-09-16 22:03 ` [PATCH v4 31/34] ima,evm: " Paul Moore
2025-09-30 20:11 ` Paul Moore
2025-10-01 17:03 ` Mimi Zohar
2025-10-01 17:23 ` Paul Moore
2025-10-10 16:53 ` Mimi Zohar
2025-10-10 19:21 ` Paul Moore
2025-10-10 10:19 ` Mimi Zohar
2025-09-16 22:03 ` [PATCH v4 32/34] selinux: " Paul Moore
2025-09-16 22:04 ` [PATCH v4 33/34] lsm: consolidate all of the LSM framework initcalls Paul Moore
2025-09-16 22:04 ` [PATCH v4 34/34] lsm: add a LSM_STARTED_ALL notification event Paul Moore
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=8b560b9522c1c42e26a108e2f9b2977901d73649.camel@linux.ibm.com \
--to=zohar@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=casey@schaufler-ca.com \
--cc=gnoack@google.com \
--cc=john.johansen@canonical.com \
--cc=kees@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mic@digikod.net \
--cc=mortonm@chromium.org \
--cc=nicolas.bouchinet@oss.cyber.gouv.fr \
--cc=paul@paul-moore.com \
--cc=penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp \
--cc=roberto.sassu@huawei.com \
--cc=selinux@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=wufan@kernel.org \
--cc=xiujianfeng@huawei.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox