Re: [PATCH 0/7 v22] LSM: Multiple concurrent LSMs

[John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com>]

On 05/08/2015 10:00 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 9:13 AM, Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote:
>> On 5/8/2015 4:21 AM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2015-05-07 at 13:36 -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>>>> On 5/7/2015 1:23 PM, Stephen Smalley wrote:
>>>>> On 05/07/2015 04:22 PM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 2015-05-07 at 14:07 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/7/2015 4:37 AM, James Morris wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 2 May 2015, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [PATCH 0/7 v22] LSM: Multiple concurrent LSMs
>>>>>>>>> Please add all of the Acked-by etc. from the patch review process.
>>>>>>>> For v21 I had Acks from:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>         John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com>
>>>>>>>>         Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
>>>>>>>>         Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov> (after patch 8/7)
>>>>>>>>         Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Would you check out v22 and supply (or not) your Acks?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Eric, Paul, it would be reassuring if you'd chime in as well.
>>>>>>> Kubernetes has swallowed Eric whole I'm afraid, I don't think you want
>>>>>>> to wait on him to review these patches.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, it is a bit ridiculous that I haven't had time to seriously
>>>>>>> review these patches yet; I promise to take a look and send my
>>>>>>> comments/ACKs before my head hits the pillow tonight.
>>>>>> Seems to be working with SELinux, EVM and IMA enabled.  I haven't tried
>>>>>> enabling an additional LSM.   Casey, do you have an additional LSM for
>>>>>> testing?
>>>>> I've tested SELinux+Yama.
>>>> The deepest "stack" you can have today is Capability+Yama+YourChoice.
>>>> You always get Capability, so you really only get to choose if you stack
>>>> Yama with something else. That's not more depth than you had before, but
>>>> the special case coding for Capability and Yama is replaced to the general
>>>> scheme.
>>> Nice cleanup!  I assume this will pave the way for other small, builtin
>>> LSMs.  :)
>>>
>>> I'm now running with Yama as well.  While enabling Yama, I noticed a
>>> very minor issue with security/Kconfig.  It permits defining Yama as the
>>> default LSM when it is stacked.
>>
>> You don't get Yama called twice in that case, which would be
>> the primary concern. I have maintained the existing behavior,
>> I think. The Yama special case stacking will go away when the
>> general LSM list specification mechanism ("yama,apparmor") comes
>> in. That ought to be in the next round.
> 
> Yup, this all looks correct. Thanks!
> 
> Acked-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> 
Looks good here

Acked-by: John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com>