linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -next 0/2] lsm: Change inode

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: <20230531132200.GB30016@lst.de>
Date:   Wed, 31 May 2023 15:22:00 +0200
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:     Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
        Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>,
        Xiu Jianfeng <xiujianfeng@...wei.com>,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, rafael@...nel.org,
        viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, dhowells@...hat.com, code@...icks.com,
        hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp, linkinjeon@...nel.org,
        sfrench@...ba.org, senozhatsky@...omium.org, tom@...pey.com,
        chuck.lever@...cle.com, jlayton@...nel.org, miklos@...redi.hu,
        paul@...l-moore.com, jmorris@...ei.org, serge@...lyn.com,
        stephen.smalley.work@...il.com, eparis@...isplace.org,
        dchinner@...hat.com, john.johansen@...onical.com,
        mcgrof@...nel.org, mortonm@...omium.org, fred@...udflare.com,
        mpe@...erman.id.au, nathanl@...ux.ibm.com, gnoack3000@...il.com,
        roberto.sassu@...wei.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-cachefs@...hat.com,
        ecryptfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-unionfs@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, selinux@...r.kernel.org,
        wangweiyang2@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next 0/2] lsm: Change inode_setattr() to take struct

On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 07:55:17AM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> Which LSM(s) do you think ought to be deprecated?

I have no idea.  But what I want is less weirdo things messing with
VFS semantics.

>
> I only see one that I
> might consider a candidate. As for weird behavior, that's what LSMs are
> for, and the really weird ones proposed (e.g. pathname character set limitations)
> (and excepting for BPF, of course) haven't gotten far.

They haven't gotten far for a reason usually.  Trying to sneak things in
through the back door is exactly what is the problem with LSMs.

> 
---end quoted text---