[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 11:12:19 -0700
From: Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
To: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
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>, casey@...aufler-ca.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] perf_event: Add support for LSM and SELinux checks
On 10/9/2019 7:44 PM, James Morris wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Oct 2019, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>
>> On 10/9/2019 3:14 PM, James Morris wrote:
>>> 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.
>> I don't believe it's any simpler for SELinux to do the allocation
>> than for the infrastructure to do it. I don't see anyone's head
>> exploding over the existing infrastructure allocation of blobs.
>> We're likely to want it at some point, so why not avoid the hassle
>> and delay by doing it the "new" way up front?
> Because it is not necessary.
The logic escapes me, but OK.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists