[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.21.2011101414330.30138@namei.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2020 14:14:55 +1100 (AEDT)
From: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
To: Aleksandr Nogikh <aleksandrnogikh@...il.com>
cc: serge@...lyn.com, akinobu.mita@...il.com,
Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>, casey@...aufler-ca.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
Aleksandr Nogikh <nogikh@...gle.com>, mortonm@...omium.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] security: add fault injection to LSM hooks
On Mon, 9 Nov 2020, Aleksandr Nogikh wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2020 at 21:35, Aleksandr Nogikh
> <aleksandrnogikh@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > From: Aleksandr Nogikh <nogikh@...gle.com>
> >
> > Fault injection capabilities[Documentation/fault-injection/fault-injection.rst]
> > facilitate testing of the stability of the Linux kernel by providing
> > means to force a number of kernel interfaces to return error
> > codes. This patch series proposes adding such fault injection
> > capability into LSM hooks.
> >
> > The intent is to make it possible to test whether the existing kernel
> > code properly handles negative return values of LSM hooks. Syzbot
> > [https://github.com/google/syzkaller/blob/master/docs/syzbot.md] will
> > automatically do that with the aid of instrumentation tools once these
> > changes are merged.
> > [...]
>
> What tree should these changes go to?
>
Mine, but more signoffs/acks are required.
> Is there anyone else who is not on the recipient list but still might
> be interested in the series?
>
--
James Morris
<jmorris@...ei.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists