Kees Cook wrote: > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 4:21 PM Tetsuo Handa > <penguin-ker...@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> wrote: > > > > Kees Cook wrote: > > > To avoid potential confusion, explicitly ignore "security=" when "lsm=" is > > > used on the command line, and report that it is happening. > > > > To maintain the existing behavior of CONFIG_DEFAULT_SECURITY, I also > > suggest this change. > > This saves e.g. Ubuntu users who are using only AppArmor from explicitly > > specifying > > security=apparmor when they don't want to enable other > > LSM_FLAG_LEGACY_MAJOR modules. > > No, this completely disables the purpose of lsm= > > I don't understand the use-case you're concerned about?
The purpose of lsm= remains. I worry that distro users who don't explicitly specify security= parameter suddenly find TOMOYO messages because TOMOYO is no longer exclusive. There are two ways for avoiding it. One is to explicitly specify security= parameter. The other is to remove tomoyo from CONFIG_LSM. This change adds the third way; preserve current security= behavior until they start explicitly specifying lsm= parameter.
