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: <55419737.4000907@canonical.com>
Date:	Wed, 29 Apr 2015 19:45:11 -0700
From:	John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>
To:	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
	Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
	Kees Cook <kees@...flux.net>, Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
CC:	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 04/29/2015 06:55 PM, 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?
> 
> Any objections or concerns?
> 
No objections, and I know there are several people interested in seeing
this land.

I am happy with the code, and my only concerns lie with things that this
explicitly doesn't support yet (ie. larger lsm stacking, secids, ...)


--
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/