linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH security-next v3 04/29] LSM: Remove initcall tracing

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: <20180930192526.4480231c@vmware.local.home>
Date:   Sun, 30 Sep 2018 19:25:26 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
        Abderrahmane Benbachir <abderrahmane.benbachir@...ymtl.ca>,
        linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
        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>,
        "Schaufler, Casey" <casey.schaufler@...el.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH security-next v3 04/29] LSM: Remove initcall tracing

On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 11:35:21 -0700
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 9:35 AM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 17:18:07 -0700
> > Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> >  
> >> This partially reverts commit 58eacfffc417 ("init, tracing: instrument
> >> security and console initcall trace events") since security init calls
> >> are about to no longer resemble regular init calls.  
> >
> > I'm not against the change, but how much are they going to "no longer
> > resemble regular init calls"?  
> 
> My take on "regular" init calls is that they're always run, link-time
> ordered, etc. The changes proposed here will make it so not all
> initialization are run depending on runtime configurations, ordering
> will be flexible, etc.
>

Will it still be a good idea to have a tracepoint for those calls?
Perhaps not an  initcall tracepoint but some other kind?

-- Steve