linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 0/3] LSM: security module information improvements

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 28 Oct 2016 20:28:45 +1100 (AEDT)
From:   James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
To:     Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
cc:     LSM <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>,
        Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
        LKLM <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/3] LSM: security module information improvements

On Thu, 27 Oct 2016, Casey Schaufler wrote:

> The 3/3 patch is forward looking, I'll admit. Userspace
> can start getting ready for the combined format in
> advance of multiple major modules. When complete module
> stacking patches are available I don't want to be addressing
> "no userspace is set up to handle that" if at all possible.
> I don't want to be Chicken or Egged to death. The attr/context
> would be the ideal thing for the id command to report, as
> the format would always be the same and identify the module(s).

We do not add speculative infrastructure to the kernel.

There is no consensus that we need major module stacking, and some of the 
technical issues (network secids, for example) are also as yet unresolved.


- James
-- 
James Morris
<jmorris@...ei.org>