linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] security: fix LSM description location

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: <CAGXu5j+B82dt9KvO0UVMBLoFxZEZF76xic4Sz41HtVfKHWpwWQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 8 Oct 2018 18:40:08 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
        linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] security: fix LSM description location

On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 5:46 PM, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org> wrote:
> From: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
>
> Fix Documentation location reference for where LSM descriptions should
> be placed.
>
> Suggested-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
> Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
> Cc: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
> Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>
> Cc: linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org

Thanks!

Acked-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>

Jon, can you take this?

-Kees

> ---
>  Documentation/security/LSM.rst |    2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> --- lnx-419-rc7.orig/Documentation/security/LSM.rst
> +++ lnx-419-rc7/Documentation/security/LSM.rst
> @@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ Linux Security Module Development
>  Based on https://lkml.org/lkml/2007/10/26/215,
>  a new LSM is accepted into the kernel when its intent (a description of
>  what it tries to protect against and in what cases one would expect to
> -use it) has been appropriately documented in ``Documentation/security/LSM.rst``.
> +use it) has been appropriately documented in ``Documentation/admin-guide/LSM/``.
>  This allows an LSM's code to be easily compared to its goals, and so
>  that end users and distros can make a more informed decision about which
>  LSMs suit their requirements.
>
>



-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security