linux-kernel - Re: [TOMOYO #6 retry 02/21] Add struct vfsmount to struct task

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: <20080116143943.GB19305@sergelap.austin.ibm.com>
Date:	Wed, 16 Jan 2008 08:39:43 -0600
From:	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
To:	Kentaro Takeda <takedakn@...data.co.jp>
Cc:	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [TOMOYO #6 retry 02/21] Add struct vfsmount to struct
	task_struct.

Quoting Kentaro Takeda (takedakn@...data.co.jp):
> Hello.
> 
> Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > I must say I personally prefer the apparmor approach.
> No problem.
> 
> > But I'd recommend
> > you get together and get this piece pushed on its own, whichever version
> > you can agree on.
> TOMOYO can use AppArmor's patch.

Right, but one will be preferred by the community - and while I have my
own preference, I wouldn't put too much faith on that, rather talk with
the apparmor folks, look over the lkml logs for previous submissions,
and then decide.

> > Yes it needs a user, but at this point I would think
> > both tomoyo and apparmor have had enough visibility that everyone knows
> > the intended users.
> Not only AppArmor and TOMOYO but also SELinux want to use "vfsmount".
> (http://marc.info/?l=selinux&m=120005904211942&w=2)
> 
> > It seems to me you're both being held up by this piece, and getting
> > another full posting of either tomoyo or apparmor isn't going to help,
> > so hopefully you can combine your efforts to get this solved.
> We welcome AppArmor's vfsmount patches, but I wonder why AppArmor's
> vfsmount patches are not merged yet.
> 
> What prevents AppArmor's vfsmount patches from merging into -mm tree?

I don't recall what objections remained at the last posting.  Far as I
know there may have simply been no responses due to patch fatigue.  (it
happens)

-serge
--
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/