linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] LSM: Convert security_hook_heads into explicit array of struct list

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:   Wed, 31 May 2017 11:44:17 +0200
From:   José Bollo <jobol@...adev.net>
To:     Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Cc:     jmorris@...ei.org, keescook@...omium.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
        casey@...aufler-ca.com, hch@...radead.org, igor.stoppa@...wei.com,
        james.l.morris@...cle.com, paul@...l-moore.com, sds@...ho.nsa.gov
Subject: Re: [PATCH] LSM: Convert security_hook_heads into explicit array of
 struct list_head

On Tue, 30 May 2017 23:29:10 +0900
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp> wrote:

> James Morris wrote:
> > On Sun, 28 May 2017, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> >   
> > > can afford enabling". And we know that we cannot merge all
> > > security modules into mainline. Thus, allowing LKM-based LSM
> > > modules is inevitable.  
> > 
> > Nope, it's not inevitable.  The LSM API only caters to in-tree
> > users.
> > 
> > I'm not sure why you persist against this.  
> 
> Then, we are willing to accept LSM modules with users less than 10,
> aren't we? Forcing users to patch and recompile is as heartless as
> forcing CONFIG_MODULES=n.

These are good reasons. I'm in favor of Tetsuo.

Regards
José