linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 00/19] LSM: Module stacking for SARA and Landlock

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:   Sat, 22 Sep 2018 09:38:12 -0700
From:   Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     LSM <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        SE Linux <selinux@...ho.nsa.gov>,
        LKLM <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
        Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
        Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
        "linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
        Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>,
        Salvatore Mesoraca <s.mesoraca16@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/19] LSM: Module stacking for SARA and Landlock

On 9/21/2018 8:02 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 4:59 PM, Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com> wrote:
>> v4: Finer granularity in the patches and other
>>     cleanups suggested by Kees Cook.
>>     Removed dead code created by the removal of SELinux
>>     credential blob poisoning.
> Thanks for the splitting, this really does make it easier to review
> (at least for me). I think this looks really good, though obviously
> I'd like to refactor it slightly on top of my series. :)

Whichever goes on top is fine with me. What's one
more patch set merge, after all?

> One additional thought I had was about the blobs allocations: some are
> separate kmem caches, and some are kmalloc. I'm thinking it might make
> sense to use separate kmem caches for two reasons:

I had seriously considered doing that. I can't see any reason
not to. It's something that could be done at any time, and with
all the other things that had to change it just didn't get in.

> - they're going to always be the same size and are regularly
> allocated/freed, so it may offer a performance benefit.
>
> - they're explicitly not supposed to be exposed to userspace, so
> hardened usercopy would protect them if they were not kmalloc()ed.
>
> I'm excited about getting this landed!

Soon. Real soon. I hope. I would very much like for
someone from the SELinux camp to chime in, especially on
the selinux_is_enabled() removal.

On a somewhat related note, I will be out for the first three
weeks of October, returning just in time for the Linux Security
Summit in Edinburgh. My connectivity will be severely limited.
I don't expect to accomplish anything while I'm out.