lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Oct]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH security-next v4 23/32] selinux: Remove boot parameter
From
Date
On 10/02/2018 10:44 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 6:42 AM, Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov> wrote:
>> On 10/02/2018 08:12 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 9:04 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Since LSM enabling is now centralized with CONFIG_LSM_ENABLE and
>>>> "lsm.enable=...", this removes the LSM-specific enabling logic from
>>>> SELinux.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
>>>> ---
>>>> .../admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt | 9 ------
>>>> security/selinux/Kconfig | 29 -------------------
>>>> security/selinux/hooks.c | 15 +---------
>>>> 3 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 52 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
>>>> b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
>>>> index cf963febebb0..0d10ab3d020e 100644
>>>> --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
>>>> +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
>>>> @@ -4045,15 +4045,6 @@
>>>> loaded. An invalid security module name will be
>>>> treated
>>>> as if no module has been chosen.
>>>>
>>>> - selinux= [SELINUX] Disable or enable SELinux at boot time.
>>>> - Format: { "0" | "1" }
>>>> - See security/selinux/Kconfig help text.
>>>> - 0 -- disable.
>>>> - 1 -- enable.
>>>> - Default value is set via kernel config option.
>>>> - If enabled at boot time, /selinux/disable can be
>>>> used
>>>> - later to disable prior to initial policy load.
>>>
>>>
>>> No comments yet on the rest of the patchset, but the subject line of
>>> this patch caught my eye and I wanted to comment quickly on this one
>>> ...
>>>
>>> Not a fan unfortunately.
>>>
>>> Much like the SELinux bits under /proc/self/attr, this is a user
>>> visible thing which has made its way into a lot of docs, scripts, and
>>> minds; I believe removing it would be a big mistake.
>>
>>
>> Yes, we can't suddenly break existing systems that had selinux=0 in their
>> grub config. We have to retain the support.
>
> Is it okay to only support selinux=0 (instead of also selinux=1)?

For Fedora/RHEL kernels, selinux=1 would be redundant since it is the
default. However, in other distros where SELinux is not the default, I
think they have documented selinux=1 as the way to enable SELinux. So
users may be relying on that as well. I don't think we can safely drop
support for either one. Sorry.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-10-02 16:57    [W:0.112 / U:0.144 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site