linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] LSM: Infrastructure management of the sock

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAHC9VhQHUKXLejiMvETYE_PJz3cyHPF5z+T1ifUCD9ezMztcSQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 31 May 2023 17:10:51 -0400
From:   Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To:     Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
Cc:     "GONG, Ruiqi" <gongruiqi@...weicloud.com>,
        John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>,
        James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        "Serge E . Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
        Stephen Smalley <stephen.smalley.work@...il.com>,
        Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, apparmor@...ts.ubuntu.com,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, selinux@...r.kernel.org,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Wang Weiyang <wangweiyang2@...wei.com>,
        Xiu Jianfeng <xiujianfeng@...wei.com>, gongruiqi1@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] LSM: Infrastructure management of the sock

On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 10:00 AM Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com> wrote:
> On 5/31/2023 4:05 AM, GONG, Ruiqi wrote:
> > As the security infrastructure has taken over the management of multiple
> > *_security blobs that are accessed by multiple security modules, and
> > sk->sk_security shares the same situation, move its management out of
> > individual security modules and into the security infrastructure as
> > well. The infrastructure does the memory allocation, and each relavant
> > module uses its own share.
>
> Do you have a reason to make this change? The LSM infrastructure
> manages other security blobs to enable multiple concurrently active
> LSMs to use the blob. If only one LSM on a system can use the
> socket blob there's no reason to move the management.

I think an argument could be made for consistent handling of security
blobs, but with the LSM stacking work in development the argument for
merging this patch needs to be a lot stronger than just "consistency".

-- 
paul-moore.com