Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
From:   Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
To:     zohar@linux.ibm.com
Cc:     dvyukov@google.com, ebiggers@kernel.org, jmorris@namei.org,
        keescook@chromium.org, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, serge@hallyn.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] integrity: double check iint_cache was initialized
Date:   Thu, 24 Feb 2022 15:20:25 +0100
Message-Id: <20220224142025.2587-1-pvorel@suse.cz>
In-Reply-To: <20210322154207.6802-2-zohar@linux.ibm.com>
References: <20210322154207.6802-2-zohar@linux.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

Hi Mimi, Tetsuo, Kees, all,

FYI this commit merged as 92063f3ca73a ("integrity: double check iint_cache was initialized")
is the reason for openSUSE distro installer going back from lsm= to deprecated
security= when filling default grub parameters because security=apparmor or
security=selinux does not break boot when used with ima_policy=tcb, unlike
using lsm.

@Kees, @Mimi sure, people who use ima_policy=tcb will just remove lsm parameter
or add "integrity" to it but I wonder whether there could be "integrity"
automatic inclusion when using ima_policy=tcb. Although the point of lsm= (and
CONFIG_LSM) is to have *ordered* list of enabled LSMs and it wouldn't be clear
on which place.

Kind regards,
Petr