linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V40 03/29] security: Add a static lockdown policy LSM

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, 30 Aug 2019 17:28:26 +0100
From:   David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To:     Matthew Garrett <matthewgarrett@...gle.com>
Cc:     dhowells@...hat.com, jmorris@...ei.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...gle.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V40 03/29] security: Add a static lockdown policy LSM

Matthew Garrett <matthewgarrett@...gle.com> wrote:

> +static char *lockdown_reasons[LOCKDOWN_CONFIDENTIALITY_MAX+1] = {

const char *const maybe?

> +static enum lockdown_reason lockdown_levels[] = {LOCKDOWN_NONE,
> +						 LOCKDOWN_INTEGRITY_MAX,
> +						 LOCKDOWN_CONFIDENTIALITY_MAX};
> +

const?

Isn't this also a 1:1 mapping?

> +static int lock_kernel_down(const char *where, enum lockdown_reason level)

Is the last parameter the reason or the level?  You're mixing the terms.

David