On 2024/09/06 16:43, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > On 2024/09/04 23:23, Paul Moore wrote: >> Patches that add complexity to the LSM framework without any benefit >> to the upstream, in-tree LSMs, or the upstream kernel in general, are >> not good candidates for inclusion in the upstream kernel. This patch adds a clear value for Linux users that people get more chances to use LSM modules which match their needs. Quoting from [1]: Regarding CONFIG_MODULES=y, "Vendor-A enables module-A" == "Vendor-A provides support for module-A" and "Vendor-B enables module-B" == "Vendor-B provides support for module-B". Regarding CONFIG_SECURITY=y (namely in the RH world), "Distributor-A enables LSM-A" == "Distributor-A provides support for LSM-A". However, "Distributor-A does not enable LSM-B" == "Some vendor is impossible to provide support for LSM-B". "Distributor-A does not enable module-B" == "Distributor-A is not responsible for providing support for module-B" and "Vendor-B enables LSM-B" == "Vendor-B provides support for LSM-B" are what I expect. Current LSM interface does not allow LSM-B to exist in Distributor-A's systems. The "enable" == "support" model should be allowed for LSM interface as well. What a strange asymmetry rule! Your "any benefit to in-tree LSMs" is completely ignoring Linux users. LSM is for all Linux users, LSM is not only for LSM developers. Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/c2a32****@I-lov***** [1]
TOMOYO
Fork