On Mon, 11 Feb 2019, Kees Cook wrote: > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 3:10 PM Casey Schaufler <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > On 2/11/2019 2:54 PM, Kees Cook wrote: > > > To avoid potential confusion, explicitly ignore "security=" when "lsm=" is > > > used on the command line, and report that it is happening. > > > > > > Suggested-by: Tetsuo Handa <[email protected]> > > > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <[email protected]> > > > --- > > > security/security.c | 8 ++++++-- > > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/security/security.c b/security/security.c > > > index 3147785e20d7..e6153ed54361 100644 > > > --- a/security/security.c > > > +++ b/security/security.c > > > @@ -288,9 +288,13 @@ static void __init ordered_lsm_init(void) > > > ordered_lsms = kcalloc(LSM_COUNT + 1, sizeof(*ordered_lsms), > > > GFP_KERNEL); > > > > > > - if (chosen_lsm_order) > > > + if (chosen_lsm_order) { > > > + if (chosen_major_lsm) { > > > + pr_info("security= is ignored because of lsm=\n"); > > > > This is a little awkward. How about "lsm= supersedes security=". > > Fine by me. James? What would you like here?
How about security= is ignored because it is superseded by lsm= ? -- James Morris <[email protected]>
