linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v12 0/3] Add trusted_for(2) (was O

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: <202110061500.B8F821C@keescook>
Date:   Wed, 6 Oct 2021 15:03:19 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>
Cc:     bauen1 <j2468h@...glemail.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        arnd@...db.de, casey@...aufler-ca.com,
        christian.brauner@...ntu.com, christian@...hon.org, corbet@....net,
        cyphar@...har.com, deven.desai@...ux.microsoft.com,
        dvyukov@...gle.com, ebiggers@...nel.org, ericchiang@...gle.com,
        fweimer@...hat.com, geert@...ux-m68k.org, jack@...e.cz,
        jannh@...gle.com, jmorris@...ei.org,
        kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, luto@...nel.org,
        madvenka@...ux.microsoft.com, mjg59@...gle.com,
        mszeredi@...hat.com, mtk.manpages@...il.com,
        nramas@...ux.microsoft.com, philippe.trebuchet@....gouv.fr,
        scottsh@...rosoft.com, sean.j.christopherson@...el.com,
        sgrubb@...hat.com, shuah@...nel.org, steve.dower@...hon.org,
        thibaut.sautereau@...p-os.org, vincent.strubel@....gouv.fr,
        viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, willy@...radead.org, zohar@...ux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 0/3] Add trusted_for(2) (was O_MAYEXEC)

On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 07:15:42PM +0200, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> There was no new reviews, probably because the FS maintainers were busy,
> and I was focused on Landlock (which is now in -next), but I plan to
> send a new patch series for trusted_for(2) soon.

Hi!

Did this ever happen? It looks like it's in good shape, and I think it's
a nice building block for userspace to have. Are you able to rebase and
re-send this?

I've tended to aim these things at akpm if Al gets busy. (And since
you've had past review from Al, that should be hopefully sufficient.)

Thanks for chasing this!

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook