linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] Security subsystem updates for 4.14

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]

Date:   Fri, 8 Sep 2017 10:25:53 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:     James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Security subsystem updates for 4.14

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 12:09 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> But yes, for the init-time integrity_read_file this is incorrect.
> It never tripped up, and I explicitly added the lockdep annotations
> so that anything would show up, and it's been half a year since
> I sent that first RFC patch..

I don't think anybody actually tests linux-next kernels in any big
way, and the automated tests that do get run probably don't run with
any integrity checking enabled.

Which is why I actually look at the code when merging unexpected stuff.

This is also why I tend to prefer getting multiple branches for
independent things.

Now the whole security pull will be ignored because of this thing. I
refuse to pull garbage where I notice major fundamental problems in
code that has obviously never ever been tested.

Side note: one of the reasons why I _looked_ at this code was because
the exclusive lock requirement was entirely unexplained in the first
place.

            Linus