Re: [PATCH security-next v3 00/29] LSM: Explict LSM ordering

[Tetsuo Handa]

On 2018/09/29 5:01, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 8:55 AM, Casey Schaufler <casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 9/24/2018 5:18 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>> v3:
>>> - add CONFIG_LSM_ENABLE and refactor resulting logic
>>
>> Kees, you can add my
>>
>>         Reviewed-by:Casey Schaufler <casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> for this entire patch set. Thank you for taking this on, it's
>> a significant and important chunk of the LSM infrastructure
>> update.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> John, you'd looked at this a bit too -- do the results line up with
> your expectations?
> 
> Any thoughts from SELinux, TOMOYO, or IMA folks?

I'm OK with this approach. Thank you.



Just wondering what is "__lsm_name_##lsm" for...

+#define DEFINE_LSM(lsm)                                                        \
+       static const char __lsm_name_##lsm[] __initconst                \
+               __aligned(1) = #lsm;                                    \
+       static struct lsm_info __lsm_##lsm                              \
+               __used __section(.lsm_info.init)                        \
+               __aligned(sizeof(unsigned long))                        \
+               = {                                                     \
+                       .name = __lsm_name_##lsm,                       \
+
+#define END_LSM          }

We could do something like below so that funny END_LSM is not required?
I felt } like a typo error at the first glance. What we need is to
gather into one section with appropriate alignment, isn't it?

#define LSM_INFO                                                        \
	static struct lsm_info __lsm_                                   \
		__used __section(.lsm_info.init)                        \
		__aligned(sizeof(unsigned long))                        \

LSM_INFO = {
	.name = "tomoyo",
	.flags = LSM_FLAG_LEGACY_MAJOR | LSM_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE,
	.init = tomoyo_init,
};