Re: [PATCH v4 00/19] LSM: Module stacking for SARA and Landlock

[James Morris]

On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Casey Schaufler wrote:

> >   How do you plan to handle LKM-based LSMs?
> 
> My position all along has been that I don't plan to handle LKM
> based LSMs, but that I won't do anything to prevent someone else
> from adding them later. I believe that I've done that. Several
> designs, including a separate list for dynamically loaded modules
> have been proposed. I think some of those would work.

Dynamically loadable LSMs are a bad idea, per several previous 
discussions. As a general design concept, kernel security mechanisms 
should be invoked during boot, so we can reason about the overall state of 
the system at a given point.

In any case, we do not need to take dynamic LSMs into account at this 
stage. We don't build infrastructure for non-existent features.