linux-kernel - Re: kernel crash in mknod

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: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 08:53:07 -0400
From: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Cc: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, 
	Steve French <smfrench@...il.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, 
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, CIFS <linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org>, 
	Paulo Alcantara <pc@...guebit.com>, Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>, 
	Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>, 
	"linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org" <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>, 
	"linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org" <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: kernel crash in mknod

On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 7:40 AM Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> For bigger changes it's also worthwhile if the object that's passed down
> into the hook-based LSM layer is as specific as possible. If someone
> does a change that affects lifetime rules of mounts then any hook that
> takes a struct path argument that's unused means going through each LSM
> that implements the hook only to find out it's not actually used.
> Similar for dentry vs inode imho.

For bigger changes please always ensure that the LSM list, and any
related LSM implementation lists, are on the To/CC line.  While we
appreciate Christian's input (and Al's, and all the other VFS devs) on
VFS matters, there are often other considerations that need to be
taken into account when discussing LSM related issues.  Generally,
"specific as possible" is good input, but it isn't the only thing we
need to worry about, and sometimes other requirements mean that it
isn't the best choice.  Just as we want the VFS devs involved in
discussions about VFS related LSM hooks (these new IMA/EVM-related LSM
hooks were sent to, and reviewed by the VFS folks), I would hope the
VFS devs would want to include the LSM devs on any LSM related issues
and would try to avoid speaking on behalf of the LSM devs and
maintainers.

-- 
paul-moore.com