From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: keescook@chromium.org (Kees Cook) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2018 17:06:16 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 10/10] LSM: Blob sharing support for S.A.R.A and LandLock In-Reply-To: References: <99cb1ae7-8881-eb9a-a8cb-a787abe454e1@schaufler-ca.com> <0eb75e66-ed50-4013-6440-38bc2f814c6f@canonical.com> Message-ID: To: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-security-module.vger.kernel.org On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 5:03 PM, Casey Schaufler wrote: > On 9/13/2018 4:51 PM, Kees Cook wrote: >> So, before we can really make a decision, I think we have to decide: >> should ordering be arbitrary for even this level of stacking? > > Do we have a case where it matters? I know that I could write a > module that would have issues if one hook got called and another > didn't because because a precursor module hook failed. I don't > think that any of the existing modules have this problem. FWIW, I prefer having explicit ordering that cannot be changed at runtime. I'm just concerned about painting ourselves (further) into a corner with security= suddenly gaining ordering semantics, but maybe I can just ignore this and we can point and laugh at anyone who gets burned by some future change to making it order-sensitive. :) -Kees -- Kees Cook Pixel Security