linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] security: Introduce LSM_ORDER

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: <3c2ad86758d13939afa9dceaab87fee2ded8201f.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Fri, 10 Mar 2023 08:38:36 -0500
From:   Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
Cc:     Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...weicloud.com>,
        dmitry.kasatkin@...il.com, jmorris@...ei.org, serge@...lyn.com,
        mic@...ikod.net, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, keescook@...omium.org,
        Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] security: Introduce LSM_ORDER_LAST and set it
 for the integrity LSM

On Thu, 2023-03-09 at 17:04 -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 8:21 AM Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2023-03-09 at 09:54 +0100, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> > > From: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>
> > >
> > > Introduce LSM_ORDER_LAST, to satisfy the requirement of LSMs needing to be
> > > last, e.g. the 'integrity' LSM, without changing the kernel command line or
> > > configuration.
> > >
> > > Also, set this order for the 'integrity' LSM. While not enforced, this is
> > > the only LSM expected to use it.
> > >
> > > Similarly to LSM_ORDER_FIRST, LSMs with LSM_ORDER_LAST are always enabled
> > > and put at the end of the LSM list.
> > >
> > > Finally, for LSM_ORDER_MUTABLE LSMs, set the found variable to true if an
> > > LSM is found, regardless of its order. In this way, the kernel would not
> > > wrongly report that the LSM is not built-in in the kernel if its order is
> > > LSM_ORDER_LAST.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 79f7865d844c ("LSM: Introduce "lsm=" for boottime LSM selection")
> > > Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
> 
> Warning: procedural nitpicking ahead ...
> 
> The 'Signed-off-by' tag is in reference to the DCO, which makes sense
> to add if you are a patch author or are merging a patch into a tree,
> but it doesn't make much sense as a ACK/thumbs-up; this is why we have
> the 'Acked-by' and 'Reviewed-by' tags.  I generally read the
> 'Acked-by' tag as "I'm the one responsible for a chunk of code
> affected by this patch and I'm okay with this change" and the
> 'Reviewed-by' tag as "I looked at this patch and it looks like a good
> change to me".  Perhaps surprisingly to some, while an 'Acked-by' is a
> requirement for merging in a lot of cases, I appreciate 'Reviewed-by'
> tags much more as it indicates the patch is getting some third-part
> eyeballs on it ... so all you lurkers on this list, if you're
> reviewing patches as they hit your inbox, don't be shy about posting
> your 'Reviewed-by' tag if your comfortable doing so, we all welcome
> the help :)
> 
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html#sign-your-work-the-developer-s-certificate-of-origin

In this case, it was a bit unclear who actually was going to upstream
this patch set.  It's better that you upstream it,  but since this
affects subsequent IMA and EVM patches, please create a topic branch.

-- 
thanks,

Mimi