linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/8] CaitSith LSM module

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: <201710211959.CEC65165.SQJOLOFVOtFFHM@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Date:   Sat, 21 Oct 2017 19:59:08 +0900
From:   Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To:     casey@...aufler-ca.com
Cc:     linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] CaitSith LSM module

Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> John Johansen wrote:
> > On 05/20/2017 09:59 PM, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > > John Johansen wrote:
> > >> On 11/22/2016 10:31 PM, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > >>> Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > >>>> John Johansen wrote:
> > >>>>>> In order to minimize the burden of reviewing, this patchset implements
> > >>>>>> only functionality of checking program execution requests (i.e. execve()
> > >>>>>> system call) using pathnames. I'm planning to add other functionalities
> > >>>>>> after this version got included into mainline. You can find how future
> > >>>>>> versions of CaitSith will look like at http://caitsith.osdn.jp/ .
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>> Thanks I've started working my way through this, but it is going to take
> > >>>>> me a while.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thank you for your time.
> > >>>
> > >>> May I hear the status? Is there something I can do other than waiting?
> > >>>
> > >> progressing very slowly, I have some time over the next few days as its a
> > >> long weekend here in the US some hopefully I can finish this up
> > >>
> > > 
> > > May I hear the status again?
> > > 
> > Yes, sorry. I just haven't had time too look at it recently. I am sorry that
> > it has been so long. I am just going to have to book a day off and do it. I'll
> > see if I can't get a day next week (getting late but I can try or the following)
> 
> No problem. ;-) I assume reviewing a new module takes at least one year.
> Thank you for remembering.
> 

I'm still fighting with OOM killer related problems at MM subsystem. ;-)

As one year elapsed since I proposed CaitSith for upstream, I'd like to
hear the status again. I looked at
http://schd.ws/hosted_files/lss2017/8b/201709-LinuxSecuritySummit-Stacking.pdf .
How is ETA for Security Module Stacking? Is it a half year or so?

If it is likely take longer, should I resume proposing CaitSith for now
as one of "Minor modules" except security_module_enable() check added
until Security Module Stacking work completes? Or should I wait for
completion of stacking work? I want to know it, for recent proposals are
rather staying silent.

Regards.