2017-04-12 13:55 GMT+02:00 Paul Moore <[email protected]>: > As currently written this code isn't something we would want to merge > upstream for two important reasons: > > * No abstraction layer at the LSM interface. The core kernel code > should not call directly into any specific LSM, all interaction should > go through the LSM hooks.
The idea behind this patch and the other one was to replicate what is done with selinux_is_enabled(). As I understand it now, selinux_is_enabled() should remain the only exception to the LSM hooks. So do you agree if I propose a new security_is_enforced() function at the LSM abstraction layer, which will be hooked to a selinux_is_enforced() function defined inside the SELinux LSM?
