[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1910100912210.29840@namei.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 09:14:44 +1100 (AEDT)
From: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
To: Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
cc: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, rostedt@...dmis.org,
primiano@...gle.com, rsavitski@...gle.com, jeffv@...gle.com,
kernel-team@...roid.com, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
Matthew Garrett <matthewgarrett@...gle.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>, selinux@...r.kernel.org,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
"maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>,
Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] perf_event: Add support for LSM and SELinux checks
On Wed, 9 Oct 2019, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> Please consider making the perf_alloc security blob maintained
> by the infrastructure rather than the individual modules. This
> will save it having to be changed later.
Is anyone planning on using this with full stacking?
If not, we don't need the extra code & complexity. Stacking should only
cover what's concretely required by in-tree users.
--
James Morris
<jmorris@...ei.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists