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
References: <20180916003059.1046-1-keescook@chromium.org> <20180916003059.1046-8-keescook@chromium.org>
In-Reply-To: <20180916003059.1046-8-keescook@chromium.org>
From:   Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Date:   Sun, 16 Sep 2018 03:27:42 +0200
Message-ID: <CAG48ez3aU5XtQxUzWE3N3f4JyCz0jFchC=CAnHTZkGZaryWFxQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/18] LSM: Add minor LSM initialization loop
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc:     James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
        John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com>,
        penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp,
        Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>,
        Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey.schaufler@intel.com>,
        linux-security-module <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
        kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 3:11 AM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> Split initialization loop into two phases: "exclusive" LSMs and "minor"
> LSMs.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> ---
>  include/linux/lsm_hooks.h | 6 ++++++
>  security/security.c       | 8 +++++---
>  2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h b/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
> index f8e618e2bdd2..ec3419b9b16f 100644
> --- a/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
> +++ b/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
> @@ -2039,7 +2039,13 @@ extern char *lsm_names;
>  extern void security_add_hooks(struct security_hook_list *hooks, int count,
>                                 char *lsm);
>
> +enum lsm_type {
> +       LSM_TYPE_EXCLUSIVE = 0,
> +       LSM_TYPE_MINOR,
> +};

Is the intent of this explicit zero assignment that LSM_TYPE_EXCLUSIVE
should be the default? If so, perhaps a comment "/* default */", or
something like that, might be helpful.