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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <939e984a-8c5d-456d-a986-26e242e45488@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2024 19:55:30 +0900 From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp> To: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com> 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, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] LSM: allow loadable kernel module based LSM modules On 2024/09/06 16:43, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > On 2024/09/04 23:23, Paul Moore wrote: >> 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. This patch adds a clear value for Linux users that people get more chances to use LSM modules which match their needs. Quoting from [1]: Regarding CONFIG_MODULES=y, "Vendor-A enables module-A" == "Vendor-A provides support for module-A" and "Vendor-B enables module-B" == "Vendor-B provides support for module-B". Regarding CONFIG_SECURITY=y (namely in the RH world), "Distributor-A enables LSM-A" == "Distributor-A provides support for LSM-A". However, "Distributor-A does not enable LSM-B" == "Some vendor is impossible to provide support for LSM-B". "Distributor-A does not enable module-B" == "Distributor-A is not responsible for providing support for module-B" and "Vendor-B enables LSM-B" == "Vendor-B provides support for LSM-B" are what I expect. Current LSM interface does not allow LSM-B to exist in Distributor-A's systems. The "enable" == "support" model should be allowed for LSM interface as well. What a strange asymmetry rule! Your "any benefit to in-tree LSMs" is completely ignoring Linux users. LSM is for all Linux users, LSM is not only for LSM developers. Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/c2a3279d-451d-23df-0911-e545d21492e6@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp [1]
Powered by blists - more mailing lists