linux-kernel - Re: ima: use of radix tree cache indexing == massive waste of memory?

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: <20101025131829.GD2162@ucw.cz>
Date:	Mon, 25 Oct 2010 15:18:30 +0200
From:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Kyle McMartin <kyle@...artin.ca>,
	kernel@...ts.fedoraproject.org, Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ibm.com>,
	warthog9@...nel.org, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Serge Hallyn <serue@...ibm.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: ima: use of radix tree cache indexing == massive waste of
 memory?

Hi!

> > Especially as our merge requirements for security/ are a lot lower than
> > for the rest of the kernel given that James is very afraid of getting
> > whacked by Linux for not mering things.
> 
> I think historically you'll see that I'm not afraid of getting whacked by 
> Linus.
> 
> A procedure for merging security features has been adopted by consensus, 
> based on suggestions from Arjan, with the aim of preventing the literally 
> endless arguments which arise from security feature discussions.  It's 
> sometimes referred to as the Arjan protocol, essentially:
> 
>   If the feature correctly implements a well-defined security goal, meets 
>   user needs without incurring unreasonable overheads, passes technical 
>   review, and is supported by competent developers, then it is likely to 
>   be merged.
> 
> If you disagree with a specific feature, you need to step up while it's 
> being reviewed and make a case against it according to the above
> criteria.

Well, I'm arguing that the criteria are wrong. Duplicated crap is
creeping in (TOMOYO vs. AppArmor), and strange stuff that has no
legitimate use is in (IMA -- what is it good for? locking machines
down, iPhone style).

> If you disagree with the protocol, then you need to come up with a better 
> one, and probably implement it yourself, to the satisfaction of all 
> parties.

I do disagree, and I do not think 'satistfaction of all parties' is
reasonable goal. Rest of kernel has different rules, and IMO they are better.

-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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/