Re: Preferred subj= with multiple LSMs

On 7/22/2019 1:50 PM, James Morris wrote: > On Fri, 19 Jul 2019, Paul Moore wrote: > >>> We've never had to think about having general rules on >>> what security modules do before, because with only one >>> active each could do whatever it wanted without fear of >>> conflict. If there is already a character that none of >>> the existing modules use, how would it be wrong to >>> reserve it? >> "We've never had to think about having general rules on what security >> modules do before..." >> >> We famously haven't imposed restrictions on the label format before >> now, and this seems like a pretty poor reason to start. > Agreed. In a follow on thread https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-security-module/msg29996.html we've been discussing the needs of dbus-daemon in a multiple LSM environment. I suggest that if supporting dbus well is assisted by making reasonable restrictions on what constitutes a valid LSM "context" that we have a good reason. While there are ways to present groups of arbitrary hunks of data, why would we want to?