linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 5/5] sbm: SandBox Mode documentation

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: <2024021415-jokester-cackle-2923@gregkh>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 16:11:05 +0100
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Petr Tesařík <petr@...arici.cz>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Petr Tesarik <petrtesarik@...weicloud.com>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
	David Kaplan <david.kaplan@....com>,
	Larry Dewey <larry.dewey@....com>,
	Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
	Carlos Bilbao <carlos.bilbao@....com>,
	"Masami Hiramatsu (Google)" <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
	Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
	Eric DeVolder <eric.devolder@...cle.com>,
	Marc Aurèle La France <tsi@...oix.net>,
	"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
	Nhat Pham <nphamcs@...il.com>,
	"Christian Brauner (Microsoft)" <brauner@...nel.org>,
	Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
	Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
	Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>,
	Mike Christie <michael.christie@...cle.com>,
	Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>,
	Maninder Singh <maninder1.s@...sung.com>,
	"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
	open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...weicloud.com>,
	Petr Tesarik <petr.tesarik1@...wei-partners.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 5/5] sbm: SandBox Mode documentation

On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 03:55:24PM +0100, Petr Tesařík wrote:
> OK, so why didn't I send the whole thing?
> 
> Decomposition of the kernel requires many more changes, e.g. in linker
> scripts. Some of them depend on this patch series. Before I go and
> clean up my code into something that can be submitted, I want to get
> feedback from guys like you, to know if the whole idea would be even
> considered, aka "Fail Fast".

We can't honestly consider this portion without seeing how it would
work, as we don't even see a working implementation that uses it to
verify it at all.

The joy of adding new frameworks is that you need a user before anyone
can spend the time to review it, sorry.

thanks,

greg k-h