Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <a2ffa6b7-5d05-39a1-11c3-d715566e4d51@schaufler-ca.com>
References: <cbf848ae-a1ac-c5ab-f23b-bc9217fceebe@schaufler-ca.com>
 <99cb1ae7-8881-eb9a-a8cb-a787abe454e1@schaufler-ca.com> <CAGXu5jLONSfPHYYYTLSma-+arVHSQKaEWb9JxpOn6TNKtyLNhw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHC9VhQN0wq0zZS5BYU9jBomaWvCaJ_BqJjHF3AT7FG8Z0nLDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGXu5jJs6kmd6Tjgwqb2Zx7e-jNbHqfJ57poZuyz4Qj=AKVfmQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHC9VhQ20tBAMwOJ9mg0tBHYUoxjh0Szr3d62HuPw2SyT4XDLw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGXu5jKec1JTsoqwKGThcJoamdL618AHu4jfFbqqQiauz1kjyg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHC9VhQwT4d3wC37cVrrX-hZq1L3e6=TEAse4m-YH9SiFnkieA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGXu5jLapViSK-j08Tq8cCZodiZXFsXze71xFPg6MQhDWDHDAA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGXu5j+j47FH5RF2vrJh95=YFX76oSBFo8O6GZqa0utcfE1AVA@mail.gmail.com>
 <0eb75e66-ed50-4013-6440-38bc2f814c6f@canonical.com> <CAGXu5jKZ7rquTux5fS+5tQ==0w_9rDTRaJWS_mS7C+Fy2dXRRQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <a2ffa6b7-5d05-39a1-11c3-d715566e4d51@schaufler-ca.com>
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Date:   Thu, 13 Sep 2018 17:06:16 -0700
Message-ID: <CAGXu5j+PhwfRCg5PycrE-JReVxKMduGsoXStWZN6PfYB-NB1og@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/10] LSM: Blob sharing support for S.A.R.A and LandLock
To:     Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
Cc:     John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com>,
        Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>,
        linux-security-module <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
        James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        SE Linux <selinux@tycho.nsa.gov>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>,
        Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>,
        "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
        "Schaufler, Casey" <casey.schaufler@intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 5:03 PM, Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote:
> On 9/13/2018 4:51 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>> So, before we can really make a decision, I think we have to decide:
>> should ordering be arbitrary for even this level of stacking?
>
> Do we have a case where it matters? I know that I could write a
> module that would have issues if one hook got called and another
> didn't because because a precursor module hook failed. I don't
> think that any of the existing modules have this problem.

FWIW, I prefer having explicit ordering that cannot be changed at
runtime. I'm just concerned about painting ourselves (further) into a
corner with security= suddenly gaining ordering semantics, but maybe I
can just ignore this and we can point and laugh at anyone who gets
burned by some future change to making it order-sensitive. :)

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security