[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2019 06:41:01 +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 Thu, 10 Oct 2019, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> > Because it is not necessary.
>
> The logic escapes me, but OK.
We should only extend the stacking infrastructure to what is concretely
required. We don't yet have a use-case for stacking perf_event so we
should keep the code as simple as possible. As soon as multiple LSMs
determine they need to share the blob, we can convert the code to blob
sharing.
--
James Morris
<jmorris@...ei.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists