linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] LSM: allow loadable kernel module based LSM modules

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: <CAHC9VhT_eBGJq5viU8R_HVWT=BTcxesWAi3nLcMgG8NfswKesA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2024 10:23:05 -0400
From: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
Cc: linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>, 
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, tomoyo-dev-en@...ts.osdn.me, 
	tomoyo-users-en@...ts.osdn.me
Subject: Re: [PATCH] LSM: allow loadable kernel module based LSM modules

On Wed, Sep 4, 2024 at 3:10 AM Tetsuo Handa
<penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp> wrote:
>
> Until 2.6.23, it was officially possible to register/unregister LSM modules
> that are implemented as loadable kernel modules.

...

> Paul Moore has commented
>
>   I do not intentionally plan to make life difficult for the out-of-tree
>   LSMs, but if that happens as a result of design decisions intended to
>   benefit in-tree LSMs that is acceptable as far as I am concerned.

Patches that add complexity to the LSM framework without any benefit
to the upstream, in-tree LSMs, or the upstream kernel in general, are
not good candidates for inclusion in the upstream kernel.

-- 
paul-moore.com