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: <20240214173112.138e0e29@meshulam.tesarici.cz>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 17:31:12 +0100
From: Petr Tesařík <petr@...arici.cz>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
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, 14 Feb 2024 16:11:05 +0100
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:

> 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.

Thank your for a quick assessment. Will it be sufficient if I send some
code for illustration (with some quick&dirty hacks to bridge the gaps),
or do you need clean and nice kernel code?

Petr T