[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20241003154336.GB3267@wind.enjellic.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2024 10:43:36 -0500
From: "Dr. Greg" <greg@...ellic.com>
To: John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] tomoyo update for v6.12
On Wed, Oct 02, 2024 at 07:27:47PM -0700, John Johansen wrote:
> On 10/2/24 03:38, Dr. Greg wrote:
> >On Tue, Oct 01, 2024 at 09:36:16AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> >Good morning Linus, I hope the week is going well for you.
> >
> >Some reflections, for the record, on this issue.
> >
> >>On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 at 07:00, Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>Linus, it's unclear if you're still following this thread after the
> >>>pull, but can you provide a little insight on your thoughts here?
> >
> >>I absolutely hate the whole "security people keep arguing", and I
> >>cannot personally find it in myself to care about tomoyo. I don't
> >>even know where it is used - certainly not in Fedora, which is the
> >>only distro I can check quickly.
> >>
> >>If the consensus is that we should revert, I'll happily revert. This
> >>was all inside of the tomoyo subdirectory, so I didn't see it as
> >>some kind of sidestepping, and treated the pull request as a regular
> >>"another odd security subsystem update".
> >
> >I see that Paul Moore has further responded with commentary about the
> >'LSM community' responding to this issue. I wanted, on behalf of our
> >project and in support of Tetsuo's concerns, to register directly with
> >you a sense of jaded skepticism about the notion of a community
> >response.
> >
> >Fixing Tetsuo's issue, at least to the extent it can be fixed,
> >requires technical improvements in the Linux security architecture.
> yes and that is correct place to do it. Doing it within a single
> LSM is very much the wrong approach
Just going out the door and saw this e-mail
Your e-mail crossed with one I just sent over in the kernel code
loading side of this thread/debate.
Will look forward to seeing your thoughts there.
As always,
Dr. Greg
The Quixote Project - Flailing at the Travails of Cybersecurity
https://github.com/Quixote-Project
Powered by blists - more mailing lists