linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 1 Jun 2017 08:56:18 +1000 (AEST)
From:   James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
To:     Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...wei.com>
cc:     Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
        Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] LSM: Convert security_hook_heads into explicit array
 of struct list_head

On Wed, 31 May 2017, Igor Stoppa wrote:

> On 30/05/17 13:32, James Morris wrote:
> 
> > This seems like pointless churn in security-critical code in anticipation 
> > of features which are still in development and may not be adopted.
> > 
> > Is there a compelling reason to merge this now? (And I don't mean worrying 
> > about non-existent compliers).
> 
> I propose to take this patch as part of those I will be submitting.
> It took me some unplanned time to add support for hardened user copy,
> but now it's done - at least to a point that I can test it without failures.
> 
> So I'm back on track to provide an example of the smalloc api and I can
> also use Tetsuo's work (thanks again, btw).
> This patch would be sandwiched between the smalloc ones and the LSM rework.
> 
> It can get merged when the rest (hopefully) is merged.
> 
> But I have a more prosaic question: since smalloc is affecting the
> memory subsystem, can it still be merged through the security tree?

It needs acks from the maintainers of the affected subsystems.

-- 
James Morris
<jmorris@...ei.org>