linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] perf_event: Add support for LSM and SELinux checks

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]

Message-ID: <20191016081036.GN2328@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Wed, 16 Oct 2019 10:10:36 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Cc:     Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, primiano@...gle.com, rsavitski@...gle.com,
        jeffv@...gle.com, kernel-team@...roid.com,
        James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        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 v2] perf_event: Add support for LSM and SELinux checks

On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 08:35:00PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> Peter, if you are Ok with it, could you squash the below diff into my
> original patch? But let me know if you want me to resend the whole patch
> again. Thanks.

Folded thanks!

I had assumed it was required such that selinux/apparmour/etc.. could
use these values from their policy.

If that is not required, then moving them private is indeed the right
thing.