linux-kernel - Re: Module stacking next steps

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: <20150430020237.GY6100@outflux.net>
Date:	Wed, 29 Apr 2015 19:02:37 -0700
From:	Kees Cook <kees@...flux.net>
To:	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
Cc:	Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
	Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
	John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>,
	Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
	LSM <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
	James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Module stacking next steps

On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 11:55:51AM +1000, James Morris wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Apr 2015, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> 
> > 
> > James, do you want to take the module stacking changes in through
> > the security tree? Are there remaining objections or concerns? What
> > procedure would you like to follow?
> 
> What's the overall consensus on this -- do people generally see it as 
> useful and necessary, and is it ready to go in?

At the very worst, I see it as a very nice clean up.

At best, I see it as extremely useful for the things I want to do, with
various "minor" LSM working together.

> Any objections or concerns?

As far as I'm concerned, I'm very happy with it.

Thanks!

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook                                            @outflux.net
--
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/