[PATCH v3 3/3] security: Remove integrity from the LSM list in Kconfig

[Roberto Sassu]

On Thu, 2023-03-09 at 08:20 -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Thu, 2023-03-09 at 09:54 +0100, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> > From: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu at huawei.com>
> > 
> > Remove 'integrity' from the list of LSMs in Kconfig, as it is no longer
> > necessary. Since the recent change (set order to LSM_ORDER_LAST), the
> > 'integrity' LSM is always enabled.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu at huawei.com>
> > ---
> >  security/Kconfig | 10 +++++-----
> >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/security/Kconfig b/security/Kconfig
> > index e6db09a779b..e109b4d5616 100644
> > --- a/security/Kconfig
> > +++ b/security/Kconfig
> > @@ -246,11 +246,11 @@ endchoice
> >  
> >  config LSM
> >  	string "Ordered list of enabled LSMs"
> > -	default "landlock,lockdown,yama,loadpin,safesetid,integrity,smack,selinux,tomoyo,apparmor,bpf" if DEFAULT_SECURITY_SMACK
> > -	default "landlock,lockdown,yama,loadpin,safesetid,integrity,apparmor,selinux,smack,tomoyo,bpf" if DEFAULT_SECURITY_APPARMOR
> > -	default "landlock,lockdown,yama,loadpin,safesetid,integrity,tomoyo,bpf" if DEFAULT_SECURITY_TOMOYO
> > -	default "landlock,lockdown,yama,loadpin,safesetid,integrity,bpf" if DEFAULT_SECURITY_DAC
> > -	default "landlock,lockdown,yama,loadpin,safesetid,integrity,selinux,smack,tomoyo,apparmor,bpf"
> > +	default "landlock,lockdown,yama,loadpin,safesetid,smack,selinux,tomoyo,apparmor,bpf" if DEFAULT_SECURITY_SMACK
> > +	default "landlock,lockdown,yama,loadpin,safesetid,apparmor,selinux,smack,tomoyo,bpf" if DEFAULT_SECURITY_APPARMOR
> > +	default "landlock,lockdown,yama,loadpin,safesetid,tomoyo,bpf" if DEFAULT_SECURITY_TOMOYO
> > +	default "landlock,lockdown,yama,loadpin,safesetid,bpf" if DEFAULT_SECURITY_DAC
> > +	default "landlock,lockdown,yama,loadpin,safesetid,selinux,smack,tomoyo,apparmor,bpf"
> >  	help
> >  	  A comma-separated list of LSMs, in initialization order.
> >  	  Any LSMs left off this list will be ignored. This can be
> 
> This comment should be updated to reflect the LSM_ORDER_FIRST and
> LSM_ORDER_LAST LSMs are included as well.

Oh, ok. Will resend shortly.

Thanks

Roberto

> Otherwise,
> Signed-off-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar at linux.ibm.com>
> 
> 
> 
>