Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH security-next v3 00/29] LSM: Explict LSM ordering | From | Tetsuo Handa <> | Date | Sat, 29 Sep 2018 19:48:23 +0900 |
| |
On 2018/09/29 5:01, Kees Cook wrote: > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 8:55 AM, Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote: >> On 9/24/2018 5:18 PM, Kees Cook wrote: >>> v3: >>> - add CONFIG_LSM_ENABLE and refactor resulting logic >> >> Kees, you can add my >> >> Reviewed-by:Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> >> >> for this entire patch set. Thank you for taking this on, it's >> a significant and important chunk of the LSM infrastructure >> update. > > Thanks! > > John, you'd looked at this a bit too -- do the results line up with > your expectations? > > Any thoughts from SELinux, TOMOYO, or IMA folks?
I'm OK with this approach. Thank you.
Just wondering what is "__lsm_name_##lsm" for...
+#define DEFINE_LSM(lsm) \ + static const char __lsm_name_##lsm[] __initconst \ + __aligned(1) = #lsm; \ + static struct lsm_info __lsm_##lsm \ + __used __section(.lsm_info.init) \ + __aligned(sizeof(unsigned long)) \ + = { \ + .name = __lsm_name_##lsm, \ + +#define END_LSM }
We could do something like below so that funny END_LSM is not required? I felt } like a typo error at the first glance. What we need is to gather into one section with appropriate alignment, isn't it?
#define LSM_INFO \ static struct lsm_info __lsm_ \ __used __section(.lsm_info.init) \ __aligned(sizeof(unsigned long)) \
LSM_INFO = { .name = "tomoyo", .flags = LSM_FLAG_LEGACY_MAJOR | LSM_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE, .init = tomoyo_init, };
| |