Re: [PATCH] selinux: add selinux_is_enforced() function

[Sebastien Buisson]

2017-04-12 13:55 GMT+02:00 Paul Moore <pmoore@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> As currently written this code isn't something we would want to merge
> upstream for two important reasons:
>
> * No abstraction layer at the LSM interface.  The core kernel code
> should not call directly into any specific LSM, all interaction should
> go through the LSM hooks.

The idea behind this patch and the other one was to replicate what is
done with selinux_is_enabled(). As I understand it now,
selinux_is_enabled() should remain the only exception to the LSM
hooks.
So do you agree if I propose a new security_is_enforced() function at
the LSM abstraction layer, which will be hooked to a
selinux_is_enforced() function defined inside the SELinux LSM?