lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Mar]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH -mm] LSM: Add lsm= boot parameter

    --- Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org> wrote:

    > On Sat, Mar 01, 2008 at 12:28:43PM -0800, Casey Schaufler wrote:
    > >
    > > --- "Ahmed S. Darwish" <darwish.07@gmail.com> wrote:
    > >
    > > > Hi everybody,
    > > >
    > > > This is a first try of adding lsm= boot parameter.
    > > >
    > > > Current situation is:
    > > > 1- Ignore wrong input, with a small warning to users.
    > > > 2- If user didn't specify a specific module, none will be loaded
    > >
    > > I'm not fond of this behavior for the case where only one LSM
    > > has been built in. Fedora, for example, ought to boot SELinux
    > > without specifing lsm=SELinux, and all the rest should boot
    > > whatever they are built with. In the case where a kernel is
    > > built with conflicting LSMs (today SELinux and Smack) I see
    > > this as a useful way to decide which to use until you get
    > > your kernel rebuilt sanely, so it appears to be worth having.
    > >...
    >
    > Remarks:
    >
    > Your comment would be covered if the default for this boot parameter (if
    > not explicitely set through the boot loader would not be "disabled" but
    > set through kconfig (based on the selected LSMs).

    Agreed.

    > We should really get this resolved for 2.6.25.

    Agreed.

    > security= suggestion is IMHO more intuitive than lsm=

    security is a very overloaded term, but since this is one
    of the ways it's already loaded in I could be OK with that.


    Casey Schaufler
    casey@schaufler-ca.com


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-03-01 22:33    [W:0.031 / U:32.876 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site