linux-kernel - Re: [Patch v4 13/18] security: Update security level of a process when modifying its dumpability

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: <f63e412c-d768-9f47-7a47-953a15db5850@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 30 Oct 2018 14:30:40 -0700
From:   Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     "Schaufler, Casey" <casey.schaufler@...el.com>,
        Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        "Mallick, Asit K" <asit.k.mallick@...el.com>,
        Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com>,
        Waiman Long <longman9394@...il.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch v4 13/18] security: Update security level of a process
 when modifying its dumpability

On 10/30/2018 01:57 PM, Schaufler, Casey wrote:

> 
> This isn't an LSM hook and hence does not belong in this file.
> arch_set_security() isn't descriptive, and is in fact a bad choice
> as task_struct has a field "security". This function has nothing
> to do with the task->security field, which is what I would expect
> based on the name.
> 

What file will be a logical place for this function?

>> +
>> +int update_process_security(struct task_struct *task)
> 
> Again, this isn't an LSM hook and does not belong in this file.
> Also again, "security" isn't descriptive in the name.
> 

Thanks.

Tim