linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] security subsystem: Tomoyo updates for v5.2

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:   Tue, 14 May 2019 04:03:42 +1000 (AEST)
From:   James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
cc:     Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
        LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] security subsystem: Tomoyo updates for v5.2

On Sun, 12 May 2019, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> >     My guess is that you are right and
> > any *significant* changes to the LSM layer itself, e.g. security/*, is
> > best sent via James' tree.  For smaller changes to the LSM layer I
> > think it's okay if they go in via an individual LSM tree so long as
> > all the other LSMs agree-on/ack the changes; which pretty much fits
> > what we've been doing for some time now and it seems to work well
> > enough.
> 
> Yeah, I think that's the sane model. And I think it's mostly been working.

New LSMs also need to be guided in, as part of a community effort.

-- 
James Morris
<jmorris@...ei.org>