[<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>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists