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

[Kees Cook]

On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 4:26 PM, John Johansen
<john.johansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 09/17/2018 04:20 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.
>>
>> Good point! It will be easy to add LSM_ORDER_LAST, though, given the
>> machinery introduced in this series.
>>
>
> And when we have two LSMs that want to use that?

We'll cross that bridge when we come to it, but perhaps "last
exclusive"? (lsm.enable/disable to choose)

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security