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: <20190621011941.186255-1-matthewgarrett@google.com>
 <20190621011941.186255-4-matthewgarrett@google.com> <201906202028.5AB58C3@keescook>
 <CACdnJut_C_h2JjryDxEm9U_rpSJFkVyxq3iCW9=AhwcdVig=9g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACdnJut_C_h2JjryDxEm9U_rpSJFkVyxq3iCW9=AhwcdVig=9g@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Matthew Garrett <mjg59@google.com>
Date:   Fri, 21 Jun 2019 14:04:08 -0700
Message-ID: <CACdnJutWhpgKeWWBv8AkTxBxoVempiuVRJzk7mrUF6LMmnwp4Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V33 03/30] security: Add a static lockdown policy LSM
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc:     James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 12:37 PM Matthew Garrett <mjg59@google.com> wrote:
> I'll check, I'm bad at finding these new fangled things.

Ah, I see - there's sysfs_match_string(), but that doesn't really work
for this case because we'd still need to do another set of checks to
see whether the level we get is in lockdown_levels, not just
lockdown_reasons.