Re: [PATCH 16/18] LSM: Allow arbitrary LSM ordering

[Casey Schaufler]

On 9/17/2018 4:20 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 4:10 PM, MickaÃl SalaÃn <mic@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Landlock, because it target unprivileged users, should only be called
>> after all other major (access-control) LSMs. The admin or distro must
>> not be able to change that order in any way. This constraint doesn't
>> apply to current LSMs, though.

What harm would it cause for Landlock to get called before SELinux?
I certainly see why it seems like it ought to get called after, but
would it really make a difference?

> Good point! It will be easy to add LSM_ORDER_LAST, though, given the
> machinery introduced in this series.
>
> -Kees
>