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

[Stephen Smalley]

On Wed, 2017-04-12 at 15:30 +0200, Sebastien Buisson wrote:
> 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.ÂÂThe 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?

Even your usage of selinux_is_enabled() looks suspect; that should
probably go away.  Only other user of it seems to be some cred validity
checking that could be dropped as well.  The include/linux/selinux.h
interfaces were originally for use by audit and secmark when there were
no other LSMs and have gradually been removed.