linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] LSM: Convert security_hook_heads into explicit array of struct list

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: <201705302329.IEB05735.FLJOFHSQVtOOFM@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Date:   Tue, 30 May 2017 23:29:10 +0900
From:   Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To:     jmorris@...ei.org
Cc:     keescook@...omium.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
        casey@...aufler-ca.com, hch@...radead.org, igor.stoppa@...wei.com,
        james.l.morris@...cle.com, paul@...l-moore.com, sds@...ho.nsa.gov
Subject: Re: [PATCH] LSM: Convert security_hook_heads into explicit array of struct list_head

James Morris wrote:
> On Sun, 28 May 2017, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> 
> > can afford enabling". And we know that we cannot merge all security modules
> > into mainline. Thus, allowing LKM-based LSM modules is inevitable.
> 
> Nope, it's not inevitable.  The LSM API only caters to in-tree users.
> 
> I'm not sure why you persist against this.

Then, we are willing to accept LSM modules with users less than 10, aren't we?
Forcing users to patch and recompile is as heartless as forcing CONFIG_MODULES=n.