Re: [PATCH security-next v4 23/32] selinux: Remove boot parameter

[James Morris]

On Tue, 2 Oct 2018, John Johansen wrote:

> To me a list like
>   lsm.enable=X,Y,Z

What about even simpler:

lsm=selinux,!apparmor,yama

> 
> is best as a single explicit enable list, and it would be best to avoid
> lsm.disable as it just introduces confusion.
> 
> I do think per-LSM bootparams looses the advantages of centralization,
> and still requires the user to know some Kconfig info but it also gets
> rid of the lsm.disable confusion.
> 
> With ordering separated out from being enabled there is a certain
> cleanness to it. And perhaps most users are looking to enable/disable
> a single lsm, instead of specifying exactly what security they want
> on their system.
> 
> If we were to go this route I would rather drop the lsm. prefix
> 
> 
> > I think the current proposal (in the other thread) is likely the
> > sanest approach:
> > 
> > - Drop CONFIG_SECURITY_SELINUX_BOOTPARAM_VALUE
> > - Drop CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR_BOOTPARAM_VALUE
> > - All enabled LSMs are listed at build-time in CONFIG_LSM_ENABLE
> 
> Hrrmmm isn't this a Kconfig selectable list, with each built-in LSM
> available to be enabled by default at boot.
> 
> > - Boot time enabling for selinux= and apparmor= remain
> > - lsm.enable= is explicit: overrides above and omissions are disabled
> wfm
> 
> > - maybe include lsm.disable= to disable anything
> 

-- 
James Morris
<jmorris@xxxxxxxxx>