Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 12 Feb 2019 11:07:18 +1100 (AEDT) | From | James Morris <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] LSM: Ignore "security=" when "lsm=" is specified |
| |
On Mon, 11 Feb 2019, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 3:10 PM Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote: > > > > On 2/11/2019 2:54 PM, Kees Cook wrote: > > > To avoid potential confusion, explicitly ignore "security=" when "lsm=" is > > > used on the command line, and report that it is happening. > > > > > > Suggested-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> > > > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> > > > --- > > > security/security.c | 8 ++++++-- > > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/security/security.c b/security/security.c > > > index 3147785e20d7..e6153ed54361 100644 > > > --- a/security/security.c > > > +++ b/security/security.c > > > @@ -288,9 +288,13 @@ static void __init ordered_lsm_init(void) > > > ordered_lsms = kcalloc(LSM_COUNT + 1, sizeof(*ordered_lsms), > > > GFP_KERNEL); > > > > > > - if (chosen_lsm_order) > > > + if (chosen_lsm_order) { > > > + if (chosen_major_lsm) { > > > + pr_info("security= is ignored because of lsm=\n"); > > > > This is a little awkward. How about "lsm= supersedes security=". > > Fine by me. James? What would you like here?
How about security= is ignored because it is superseded by lsm= ?
-- James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>
| |