linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 0/3] Safe, dynamically (un)loadable LSMs

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: <alpine.LFD.2.20.1712071053420.8348@localhost>
Date:   Thu, 7 Dec 2017 11:00:31 +1100 (AEDT)
From:   James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>
To:     Sargun Dhillon <sargun@...gun.me>
cc:     Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
        LSM <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...wei.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/3] Safe, dynamically (un)loadable LSMs

On Wed, 6 Dec 2017, Sargun Dhillon wrote:

> Should I respin this patch sans module unloading? Still a set of dynamic 
> hooks that are independent to allow for sealable memory support.

Yes, please.

> I'm also wondering what people think of the fs change? I don't think 
> that it makes a lot of sense just having one giant list. I was thinking 
> it might make more sense using the module_name instead.

I don't know how useful this will be in practice.  Who/what will be 
looking at these entries and why?


-- 
James Morris
<james.l.morris@...cle.com>