linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] selinux/selinux-pr-20250323

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAHC9VhRExVqdhHqs0njs7NY6bFg0BfcE-gMpS30HW9O7MSDfWQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2025 14:36:40 -0400
From: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: selinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] selinux/selinux-pr-20250323

On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 7:02 PM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Mar 2025 at 12:39, Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com> wrote:
> >
> > - Add additional SELinux access controls for kernel file reads/loads
> >
> >   The SELinux kernel file read/load access controls were never updated
> >   beyond the initial kernel module support, this pull request adds
> >   support for firmware, kexec, policies, and x.509 certificates.
>
> Honestly, is there a *reason* for this, or is this just some misguided
> "for completeness" issue?
>
> Because dammit, adding more complexity to the security rules isn't a
> feature, and isn't security. It's just theater ...

>From my perspective this is largely a continuation of our discussion
last April, and considering that you ignored my response then, I'm not
sure typing out a meaningful reply here is a good use of my time.
Anyone who is interested can find that thread on lore, unfortunately
much of my response still applies.

-- 
paul-moore.com