linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 2/8] LSM: Add an LSM identifier for external use

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]

Date:   Fri, 28 Oct 2022 09:54:59 -0700
From:   Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     casey.schaufler@...el.com, paul@...l-moore.com,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, jmorris@...ei.org,
        keescook@...omium.org, john.johansen@...onical.com,
        penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp, stephen.smalley.work@...il.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        mic@...ikod.net, casey@...aufler-ca.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/8] LSM: Add an LSM identifier for external use

On 10/26/2022 11:31 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 12:36:34PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>>>> + *
>>>> + * Copyright (C) 2022 Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
>>>> + * Copyright (C) Intel Corporation
>>> No date for Intel?
>> The latest guidance I have received is that Intel does not want a date.
> Ok, then I need to have an Intel lawyer sign off on a patch that does
> this in order to have that be their official statement.  Otherwise, it
> needs a date.

Seems I misunderstood something. The date will be there.

>>>> + */
>>>> +
>>>> +#ifndef _UAPI_LINUX_LSM_H
>>>> +#define _UAPI_LINUX_LSM_H
>>>> +
>>>> +/*
>>>> + * ID values to identify security modules.
>>>> + * A system may use more than one security module.
>>>> + *
>>>> + * LSM_ID_XXX values 0 - 31 are reserved for future use
>>> Reserved for what?  Why?
>> You're not the first person to ask.
> And the answer is?

There hasn't been an argument for it beyond "just in case".
I can't see a rational reason to reserve specific numbers as
I don't see value in LSM ranges.

>> I'll remove the reserved values for the next version.
> Because we asked it will be removed?

Because I don't have a good reason for including it and it
has been called into question. If a reviewer has a legitimate
case for reserved values they may be back.

> confused,
>
> greg k-h