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 13:36:29 -0400
From:   Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...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 1:25 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 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.

Is it time to start sending pull request for each LSM and thing under
security/ directly?  I'm not sure I have a strong preference either
way, I just don't want to see the SELinux changes ignored during the
merge window.

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com