Re: [PATCH] LSM: Ignore "security=" when "lsm=" is specified

[Kees Cook]

On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 3:10 PM Casey Schaufler <casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 2/11/2019 2:54 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> > To avoid potential confusion, explicitly ignore "security=" when "lsm=" is
> > used on the command line, and report that it is happening.
> >
> > Suggested-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  security/security.c | 8 ++++++--
> >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/security/security.c b/security/security.c
> > index 3147785e20d7..e6153ed54361 100644
> > --- a/security/security.c
> > +++ b/security/security.c
> > @@ -288,9 +288,13 @@ static void __init ordered_lsm_init(void)
> >       ordered_lsms = kcalloc(LSM_COUNT + 1, sizeof(*ordered_lsms),
> >                               GFP_KERNEL);
> >
> > -     if (chosen_lsm_order)
> > +     if (chosen_lsm_order) {
> > +             if (chosen_major_lsm) {
> > +                     pr_info("security= is ignored because of lsm=\n");
>
> This is a little awkward. How about "lsm= supersedes security=".

Fine by me. James? What would you like here?

-- 
Kees Cook