MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230309085433.1810314-1-roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com>
 <20230309085433.1810314-2-roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com> <397cb437bbd41e7eb223a07bc92a10bb57df696e.camel@linux.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <397cb437bbd41e7eb223a07bc92a10bb57df696e.camel@linux.ibm.com>
From:   Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Date:   Thu, 9 Mar 2023 17:04:31 -0500
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhTt7xZqkfZQsWVLRHzza_9idzxkY7bXxzBMq=Xxfc6+Cg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] security: Introduce LSM_ORDER_LAST and set it for
 the integrity LSM
To:     Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com>,
        dmitry.kasatkin@gmail.com, jmorris@namei.org, serge@hallyn.com,
        mic@digikod.net, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, keescook@chromium.org,
        Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 8:21=E2=80=AFAM Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com> wro=
te:
> On Thu, 2023-03-09 at 09:54 +0100, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> > From: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
> >
> > Introduce LSM_ORDER_LAST, to satisfy the requirement of LSMs needing to=
 be
> > last, e.g. the 'integrity' LSM, without changing the kernel command lin=
e or
> > configuration.
> >
> > Also, set this order for the 'integrity' LSM. While not enforced, this =
is
> > the only LSM expected to use it.
> >
> > Similarly to LSM_ORDER_FIRST, LSMs with LSM_ORDER_LAST are always enabl=
ed
> > and put at the end of the LSM list.
> >
> > Finally, for LSM_ORDER_MUTABLE LSMs, set the found variable to true if =
an
> > LSM is found, regardless of its order. In this way, the kernel would no=
t
> > wrongly report that the LSM is not built-in in the kernel if its order =
is
> > LSM_ORDER_LAST.
> >
> > Fixes: 79f7865d844c ("LSM: Introduce "lsm=3D" for boottime LSM selectio=
n")
> > Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
>
> Signed-off-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>

Warning: procedural nitpicking ahead ...

The 'Signed-off-by' tag is in reference to the DCO, which makes sense
to add if you are a patch author or are merging a patch into a tree,
but it doesn't make much sense as a ACK/thumbs-up; this is why we have
the 'Acked-by' and 'Reviewed-by' tags.  I generally read the
'Acked-by' tag as "I'm the one responsible for a chunk of code
affected by this patch and I'm okay with this change" and the
'Reviewed-by' tag as "I looked at this patch and it looks like a good
change to me".  Perhaps surprisingly to some, while an 'Acked-by' is a
requirement for merging in a lot of cases, I appreciate 'Reviewed-by'
tags much more as it indicates the patch is getting some third-part
eyeballs on it ... so all you lurkers on this list, if you're
reviewing patches as they hit your inbox, don't be shy about posting
your 'Reviewed-by' tag if your comfortable doing so, we all welcome
the help :)

https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html#sign=
-your-work-the-developer-s-certificate-of-origin

--=20
paul-moore.com