linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH security-next v5 12/30] LSM: Provide separate ordered initialization

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1541427238.21115.58.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Mon, 05 Nov 2018 09:13:58 -0500
From:   Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
        John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>,
        Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
        Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Jordan Glover <Golden_Miller83@...tonmail.ch>,
        LSM <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        "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 v5 12/30] LSM: Provide separate ordered
 initialization

On Fri, 2018-11-02 at 13:49 -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 11:13 AM, Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
> > I don't recall why "integrity" is on the security_initcall, while both
> > IMA and EVM are on the late_initcall().
> 
> It's because integrity needs to have a VFS buffer allocated extremely
> early, so it used the security init to do it. While it's not an LSM,
> it does use this part of LSM infrastructure. I didn't see an obvious
> alternative at the time, but now that I think about it, maybe just a
> simple postcore_initcall() would work?

I was questioning why the "security_initcall", which is called after
the late_initcall.  Moving it to the postcore_initcall, before the
late_initcall, sounds right.

Mimi