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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAMp4zn8o0giNY2m=5bmfFA5veKZrux=zYzL0Aaqd2xi0PsZ+bA@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2018 13:43:11 -0700 From: Sargun Dhillon <sargun@...gun.me> To: Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com> Cc: LSM <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...wei.com>, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] security: Split out hook definitions into lsm_hook_types.h On Sun, Apr 1, 2018 at 10:32 AM, Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com> wrote: > > On 4/1/2018 3:17 AM, Sargun Dhillon wrote: > > This moves all of the LSM hooks type information into a separate file, > > lsm_hook_types.h. This enables us to use this file, along with macros > > to generate the security_hook_heads struct, as well as the security > > hooks union without having to duplicate definitions. > > > > This will be useful for further datastructures which want to use > > the set of security hooks in a completely unrolled way, along > > with the type information there within. > > Can you explain what this patch set is trying to accomplish? > I see no value. I see massive complexity. Why is this better > than what is there now? > 1) Reduce the total amount of code 2) In the process of implementing the loadable hooks stuff, I wanted to add a few more unrolled datastructures, specifically around static keys, and I realized I would have to write an entirely new datastructure like the security heads. To me, rather than having to touch 3 different parts of code in order to change something, it seems nice to keep it centralized. Same with RCU. 3) Rather than call_int_hook, and call_void_hook, we could generate an actual function definitions. I think that will be a bit cleaner, esp. in the context of the 2nd set of hook patches.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists