RE: [RFC v2 1/2] WhiteEgret: Add WhiteEgret core functions.

[masanobu2.koike]

On Saturday, March 03, 2018 5:22 PM, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Masanobu Koike wrote:
> > On Friday, March 02, 2018 12:43 AM, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> > > On 2/28/2018 11:38 PM, Masanobu Koike wrote:
> > > > @@ -264,6 +266,9 @@ choice
> > > >  	config DEFAULT_SECURITY_APPARMOR
> > > >  		bool "AppArmor" if SECURITY_APPARMOR=y
> > > >
> > > > +	config DEFAULT_SECURITY_WHITEEGRET
> > > > +		bool "WhiteEgret" if SECURITY_WHITEEGRET=y
> > > > +
> > >
> > > I don't see this module using any security blobs. Is there
> > > a reason you're not making this a minor (like yama) module
> > > instead of a major (like AppArmor) module?
> >
> > Thank you for your suggestion.
> > We are now developing WhiteEgret on the environment
> > it works certainly.
> >
> 
> ??? What Casey suggested is effectively
> 
> ----------
> --- a/security/whiteegret/init.c
> +++ b/security/whiteegret/init.c
> @@ -48,9 +48,6 @@ static int __init we_init(void)
>  {
>  	int rc;
> 
> -	if (!security_module_enable("whiteegret"))
> -		return 0;
> -
>  	security_add_hooks(we_hooks, ARRAY_SIZE(we_hooks),
> "whiteegret");
> 
>  	rc = we_specific_init();
> ----------
> 
> , isn't it? Unlike Yama, adding whiteegret_add_hooks() to security_init()
> is not useful, for security_init() is called too early to create securityfs
> entries for WhiteEgret.
> 
> Current version uses security= parameter as a switch for enabling/disabling
> WhiteEgret, doesn't it? If WhiteEgret does not use security= as a switch,
> is some other switch (e.g. __setup()) expected?

Sorry for the delay.
Thank you for your comment and suggestion.
I'll make this module a minor one in the
next version.

Masanobu Koike