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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 13:49:44 -0700 From: Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@...ux.microsoft.com> To: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com> Cc: Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@...hat.com>, Stephen Smalley <stephen.smalley.work@...il.com>, Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>, Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>, Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@...ux.microsoft.com>, tusharsu@...ux.microsoft.com, Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, SElinux list <selinux@...r.kernel.org>, LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] SELinux: Measure state and hash of policy using IMA On 8/24/20 3:18 PM, Paul Moore wrote: Hi Paul, >>>>> Is Ondrej's re-try approach I need to use to workaround policy reload issue? >>>> >>>> No, I think perhaps we should move the mutex to selinux_state instead >>>> of selinux_fs_info. selinux_fs_info has a pointer to selinux_state so >>>> it can then use it indirectly. Note that your patches are going to >>>> conflict with other ongoing work in the selinux next branch that is >>>> refactoring policy load and converting the policy rwlock to RCU. >>> >>> Yeah, and I'm experimenting with a patch on top of Stephen's RCU work >>> that would allow you to do this in a straightforward way without even >>> messing with the fsi->mutex. My patch may or may not be eventually >>> committed, but either way I'd recommend holding off on this for a >>> while until the dust settles around the RCU conversion. >> >> I can make the SELinux\IMA changes in "selinux next branch" taking >> dependencies on Stephen's patches + relevant IMA patches. > > I know it can be frustrating to hear what I'm about to say, but the > best option is probably just to wait a little to let things settle in > the SELinux -next branch. There is a lot of stuff going on right now > with patches flooding in (at least "flooding" from a SELinux kernel > development perspective) and we/I've haven't gotten through all of > them yet. > Could you please let me know when the current set of changes in SELinux next branch would be completed and be ready to take new changes? I mean, roughly - would it be a month from now or you expect that to take longer? thanks, -lakshmi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists