linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] Introducing Hornet 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <CAHC9VhTj3=ZXgrYMNA+G64zsOyZO+78uDs1g=kh91=GR5KypYg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2025 18:26:27 -0400
From: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To: KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>, 
	Blaise Boscaccy <bboscaccy@...ux.microsoft.com>, 
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, 
	code@...icks.com, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, 
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, Günther Noack <gnoack@...gle.com>, 
	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>, 
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, Jan Stancek <jstancek@...hat.com>, 
	Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>, keyrings@...r.kernel.org, 
	Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>, 
	"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, 
	Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, 
	"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>, 
	LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>, 
	clang-built-linux <llvm@...ts.linux.dev>, Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>, 
	Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>, 
	Bill Wendling <morbo@...gle.com>, Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>, Neal Gompa <neal@...pa.dev>, 
	Nick Desaulniers <nick.desaulniers+lkml@...il.com>, Nicolas Schier <nicolas@...sle.eu>, nkapron@...gle.com, 
	Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>, "Serge E . Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>, 
	Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Matteo Croce <teknoraver@...a.com>, 
	Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>, kysrinivasan@...il.com, 
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] Introducing Hornet LSM

On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 6:58 PM Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com> wrote:
>
> When the kernel performs a security relevant operation, such as
> verifying the signature on a BPF program, where the result of the
> operation serves as input to a policy decision, system measurement,
> audit event, etc. the LSM hook needs to be located after the security
> relevant operation takes place so that the hook is able to properly
> take into account the state of the event/system and record the actual
> result as opposed to an implied result (this is critical for auditing,
> measurement, attestation, etc.).
>
> You explained why you believe the field/hook is not required, but I'm
> asking for your *technical*objections*.  I understand that you believe
> these changes are not required, but as described above, I happen to
> disagree and therefore it would be helpful to understand the technical
> reasons why you can't accept the field/hook changes.  Is there a
> technical reason which would prevent such changes, or is it simply a
> rejection of the use case and requirements above?

Bubbling this back up to the top of your inbox ...

-- 
paul-moore.com