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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 31 May 2017 23:49:34 +0300
From:   Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...wei.com>
To:     James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
CC:     <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 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?

---
thanks, igor