[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8734cimbli.fsf@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2025 08:01:29 -0700
From: Blaise Boscaccy <bboscaccy@...ux.microsoft.com>
To: KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>
Cc: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>, jarkko@...nel.org,
zeffron@...tgames.com, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, kysrinivasan@...il.com,
code@...icks.com, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
roberto.sassu@...wei.com, James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com, Alexei
Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, John
Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, Eduard Zingerman
<eddyz87@...il.com>, Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, Yonghong Song
<yonghong.song@...ux.dev>, Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>, Hao Luo
<haoluo@...gle.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, David Howells
<dhowells@...hat.com>, Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>, Ignat Korchagin
<ignat@...udflare.com>, Quentin Monnet <qmo@...nel.org>, Jason Xing
<kerneljasonxing@...il.com>, Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>, Anton
Protopopov <aspsk@...valent.com>, Jordan Rome <linux@...danrome.com>,
Martin Kelly <martin.kelly@...wdstrike.com>, Alan Maguire
<alan.maguire@...cle.com>, Matteo Croce <teknoraver@...a.com>,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
keyrings@...r.kernel.org, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, kys@...rosoft.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] BPF signature verification
KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org> writes:
>> And I'm saying that they are, based on wanting visibility in the LSM
>> layer, passing that along to the end user, and wanting to be able to
>> show correctness, along with mitigating an entire vector of supply chain
>> attacks targeting gen.c.
>
> What supply chain attack?I asked this earlier, you never replied, what
> does a supply chain attack here really look like?
>
>
I responded to that here:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-security-module/87iklhn6ed.fsf@microsoft.com/
Warmest Regards,
Blaise
> - KP
>
>>
>> So in summary, your objection to this is that you feel it's simply "not
>> needed", and those above risks/design problems aren't actually an issue?
>>
>> > Let's have this discussion in the patch series, much easier to discuss
>> > with the code.
>>
>> I think we've all been waiting for that. Yes, lets.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists