linux-kernel - Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch]

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]

Message-ID: <20071023051642.GA3908@sequoia.sous-sol.org>
Date:	Mon, 22 Oct 2007 22:16:42 -0700
From:	Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>
To:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc:	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...putergmbh.de>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@...e.de>,
	Thomas Fricaccia <thomas_fricacci@...oo.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch]

* Arjan van de Ven (arjan@...radead.org) wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 08:57:06 +1000 (EST)
> James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, 20 Oct 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> > 
> > > >I'd like to note that I asked people who were actually affected,
> > > >and had examples of their real-world use to step forward and
> > > >explain their use, and that I explicitly mentioned that this is
> > > >something we can easily re-visit.
> > > >
> > > 
> > > I do have a pseudo LSM called "multiadm" at 
> > > http://freshmeat.net/p/multiadm/ , quoting:
> > > 
> > 
> > Based on Linus' criteria, this appears to be a case for reverting the 
> > static LSM patch.
> 
> I don't want to argue for or against the actual revert; however if Linus/James/Chris
> decide to do a revert, I've made a patch to do that below

Thanks Arjan.  I did not actually oppose making it non-modular, and
thought there was sufficient time for people to complain meaningfully
on that change.  I also think there's not a lot of value in the modular
interface, but it's very difficult to have rational discussions in this
area.

> (doing a full git revert is tricky since it gets mixed up with various other cleanup 
> patches; even inside the original patch. I've done the relevant pieces by hand via a 
> selective patch -R and compile-tested it). In addition I've made the modularity a 
> Kconfig option, since it's clearly something that is contested and thus is justified 
> as a user compile time choice; people who don't want this (out of paranoia or otherwise)
> can now decide to disable, while others who want to experiment or use out of tree 
> LSM modules, can select the KConfig option.
> 
> If it turns out that the above module becomes unmaintained and no longer usable, and no
> other useful cases show up, we can always garbage collect this code in the future; it's 
> now low-overhead anyway for those who care, due to the KConfig option.

Yes, and I think we can still improve performance although I can't see
anyway to help out the modular case, so I guess it will have to incur
the hit that's always been there.  I think your Kconfig option is a
decent compromise.

thanks,
-chris
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/