[PATCH 04/10] CaitSith: Add header file.

[Tetsuo Handa]

On 2022/11/06 8:46, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 05, 2022 at 01:05:44PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>> On 2022/11/05 11:43, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 02, 2022 at 10:57:48AM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>>>> On 11/2/2022 10:10 AM, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>>>>> The main point of this submission is to demonstrate how an LSM module
>>>>> which can be loaded using /sbin/insmod can work, and to provide
>>>>> consideration points for making changes for LSM stacking in a way that
>>>>> will not lock out LSM modules which can be loaded using /sbin/insmod .
>>>>
>>>> CaitSith could readily be done as an in-tree LSM. The implementation
>>>> of loadable module infrastructure is unnecessary.
>>>
>>> Sorry, I'm getting confused.  But in-tree and loadable are not related,
>>> right?
>>
>> Very much related. My goal is to get CaitSith in-tree as a loadable LSM module
>> which can be loaded using /sbin/insmod .
> 
> Great.  I support that.  But the sentence

Thank you.

> 
>>>> CaitSith could readily be done as an in-tree LSM. The implementation
>>>> of loadable module infrastructure is unnecessary.
> 
> suggests that because CaitSith could be done in-tree, it doesn't need
> to be loadable.  I'm saying that is a non sequitur.  It sounded like
> that setence was meant to say "Because CaitSith could be in-tree, it
> doesn't need to be =m.  Only out of tree modules need to be loadable."

Unfortunately, I don't think that my intended Linux distributor (namely, Red Hat)
will support LSMs other than SELinux.

  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=542986

Therefore, not only out of tree modules but also in-tree modules which cannot be
enabled by Linux distributors need to be implemented as loadable kernel modules.