linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] security: Don't yet account for IMA in LSM_CONFIG

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: <CAHC9VhSMVpEvLwWvBCgz0EMEb=DG_AZ7fenVUk5vPM=v5c6kYQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 26 Oct 2023 11:59:00 -0400
From:   Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To:     Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...weicloud.com>
Cc:     jmorris@...ei.org, serge@...lyn.com,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, zohar@...ux.ibm.com,
        linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
        Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] security: Don't yet account for IMA in LSM_CONFIG_COUNT calculation

On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 11:12 AM Roberto Sassu
<roberto.sassu@...weicloud.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2023-10-26 at 10:48 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Oct 26, 2023 Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...weicloud.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Since IMA is not yet an LSM, don't account for it in the LSM_CONFIG_COUNT
> > > calculation, used to limit how many LSMs can invoke security_add_hooks().
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>
> > > ---
> > >  security/security.c | 1 -
> > >  1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > Merged into lsm/dev-staging, thanks!
>
> Welcome!
>
> Could you please also rebase lsm/dev-staging, to move ab3888c7198d
> ("LSM: wireup Linux Security Module syscalls") after f7875966dc0c
> ("tools headers UAPI: Sync files changed by new fchmodat2 and
> map_shadow_stack syscalls with the kernel sources")?

Let me look into that, as long as it doesn't blow up the stuff in
lsm/dev (I don't think it would), I'll go ahead and rebase to v6.6-rc4
which should resolve the syscall numbering conflict.

FWIW, I also hit the same problem with my kernel-secnext builds, if
you're using those RPMs you'll find it's already resolved there.

-- 
paul-moore.com