linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC v15 12/21] security: add security_bdev

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]

Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 13:31:06 -0700
From: Fan Wu <wufan@...ux.microsoft.com>
To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>, Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
 corbet@....net, zohar@...ux.ibm.com, jmorris@...ei.org, serge@...lyn.com,
 tytso@....edu, ebiggers@...nel.org, axboe@...nel.dk, agk@...hat.com,
 snitzer@...nel.org, eparis@...hat.com
Cc: linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, fsverity@...ts.linux.dev,
 linux-block@...r.kernel.org, dm-devel@...ts.linux.dev,
 audit@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v15 12/21] security: add security_bdev_setintegrity()
 hook



On 3/20/2024 1:31 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Wed Mar 20, 2024 at 10:28 AM EET, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>> On Wed Mar 20, 2024 at 1:00 AM EET, Paul Moore wrote:
>>> On Mar 15, 2024 Fan Wu <wufan@...ux.microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This patch introduces a new hook to save block device's integrity
>>>> data. For example, for dm-verity, LSMs can use this hook to save
>>>> the roothash signature of a dm-verity into the security blob,
>>>> and LSMs can make access decisions based on the data inside
>>>> the signature, like the signer certificate.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Fan Wu <wufan@...ux.microsoft.com>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> v1-v14:
>>>>    + Not present
>>>>
>>>> v15:
>>>>    + Introduced
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>   include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h |  2 ++
>>>>   include/linux/security.h      | 14 ++++++++++++++
>>>>   security/security.c           | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>   3 files changed, 44 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> I'm not sure why you made this a separate patch, help?  If there is
>>> no significant reason why this is separate, please squash it together
>>> with patch 11/21.
>>
>> Off-topic: it is weird to have *RFC* patch set at v15.
>>
>> RFC by de-facto is something that can be safely ignored if you don't
>> have bandwidth. 15 versions of anything that can be safely ignored
>> is by definition spamming :-) I mean just conceptually.
>>
>> So does the RFC still hold or what the heck is going on with this one?
>>
>> Haven't followed for some time now...
> 
> I mean if this RFC trend continues I'll just put auto-filter for this
> thread to put straight to the bin.  There's enough non-RFC patch sets
> to review.
> 
> BR, Jarkko

Sorry about the confusion with the RFC tag – I wasn't fully aware of its 
conventional meaning and how it's perceived in terms of importance and 
urgency. Point taken, and I'll make sure to remove the RFC tag for 
future submissions. Definitely not my intention to clog up the workflow 
or seem like I'm spamming.

-Fan