Re: [PATCH] LSM: Ignore "security=" when "lsm=" is specified

[James Morris]

On Mon, 11 Feb 2019, Kees Cook wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 3:10 PM Casey Schaufler <casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  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How about security= is ignored because it is superseded by lsm= ?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@xxxxxxxxx>