linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rust: lsm: replace context+len with lsm

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: <CAHC9VhS5wLQeF4LX67UgUYVG3oViA7CmSZS_kugH+M5J0XS2Vg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2024 12:56:42 -0400
From: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>
Cc: naresh.kamboju@...aro.org, casey@...aufler-ca.com, 
	anders.roxell@...aro.org, arnd@...db.de, brauner@...nel.org, 
	dan.carpenter@...aro.org, kees@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org, ojeda@...nel.org, regressions@...ts.linux.dev, 
	rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, 
	lkft@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rust: lsm: replace context+len with lsm_context

On Fri, Nov 1, 2024 at 5:56 AM Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> This brings the Rust SecurityCtx abstraction [1] up to date with the new
> API where context+len is replaced with an lsm_context [2] struct.
>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240915-alice-file-v10-5-88484f7a3dcf@google.com [1]
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241023212158.18718-3-casey@schaufler-ca.com [2]
> Reported-by: Linux Kernel Functional Testing <lkft@...aro.org>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/r/CA+G9fYv_Y2tzs+uYhMGtfUK9dSYV2mFr6WyKEzJazDsdk9o5zw@mail.gmail.com
> Signed-off-by: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>
> ---
>  rust/helpers/security.c |  8 ++++----
>  rust/kernel/security.rs | 38 +++++++++++++++++---------------------
>  2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)

Thanks Alice.  Would you like me to pull this in via the LSM tree with
the associated LSM changes, or would you prefer to do this some other
way?

I'm going to merge this into lsm/dev for now so that we fix the issue
in linux-next, but I'm happy to drop it or do something else, let me
know.

-- 
paul-moore.com