Re: [PATCH 1/2] LSM: Exclusive secmark usage

[Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>]

On 10/9/2025 11:49 AM, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 1, 2025 at 5:56 PM Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote:
>> The network secmark can only be used by one security module
>> at a time. Establish mechanism to identify to security modules
> a mechanism to inform security modules?
>
>> whether they have access to the secmark. SELinux already
>> incorparates mechanism, but it has to be added to Smack and
> incorporates
>
>> AppArmor.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
>> ---
>>  include/linux/lsm_hooks.h        |  1 +
>>  security/apparmor/include/net.h  |  5 +++++
>>  security/apparmor/lsm.c          |  7 ++++---
>>  security/security.c              |  6 ++++++
>>  security/selinux/hooks.c         |  4 +++-
>>  security/smack/smack.h           |  5 +++++
>>  security/smack/smack_lsm.c       |  3 ++-
>>  security/smack/smack_netfilter.c | 10 ++++++++--
>>  8 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/security/security.c b/security/security.c
>> index ad163f06bf7a..e59e3d403de6 100644
>> --- a/security/security.c
>> +++ b/security/security.c
>> @@ -283,6 +283,12 @@ static void __init lsm_set_blob_sizes(struct lsm_blob_sizes *needed)
>>         lsm_set_blob_size(&needed->lbs_xattr_count,
>>                           &blob_sizes.lbs_xattr_count);
>>         lsm_set_blob_size(&needed->lbs_bdev, &blob_sizes.lbs_bdev);
>> +       if (needed->lbs_secmark) {
>> +               if (blob_sizes.lbs_secmark)
>> +                       needed->lbs_secmark = false;
>> +               else
>> +                       blob_sizes.lbs_secmark = true;
>> +       }
> So if I understand correctly, the first LSM to register with
> lbs_secmark set wins.
> Not sure that's a great idea - seemingly some LSMs may want to insist
> that they get to use secmark regardless of registration order?

But what if two LSMs insist on getting the secmark? The whole point
is to make it possible to use multiple LSMs that what the feature at
the same time. The limitation on a secmark being a u32 is a huge problem,
and Paul has battled with the netdev people over it for years.