[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <60f17362-af8e-46db-9bcf-be85b84a525d@suse.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2025 13:02:36 +0300
From: Nikolay Borisov <nik.borisov@...e.com>
To: Nicolas Bouchinet <nicolas.bouchinet@....cyber.gouv.fr>
Cc: linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
paul@...l-moore.com, serge@...lyn.com, jmorris@...ei.org,
dan.j.williams@...el.com, Xiujianfeng <xiujianfeng@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Allow individual features to be locked down
On 8/14/25 11:59, Nicolas Bouchinet wrote:
> Hi Nikolay,
>
> After discussing with Xiu, we have decided not to accept this patchset.
>
> The goal of Lockdown being to draw a clear line between ring-0 and uid-0,
> having a more granular way to activate Lockdown will break it. Primarily
> because most lockdown-reasons can be bypassed if used independently.
>
> Even if the goal of Lockdown were to be redefined, we would need to ensure the
> security interdependence between different lockdown-reasons. This is highly
> tied to where people calls the `security_locked_down` hook and thus is out of
> our maintenance scope.
>
> Having coarse-grained lockdown reasons and integrity/confidentiality levels
> allows us to ensure that all of the reasons are correctly locked down.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Nicolas
Thanks for the feedback, to try and not have all this code go to waste,
what about consdering patch 2 - kunits tests. Apart from
lockdown_test_individual_level() the other tests are applicable to the
existing lockdown implementation and can aid in future developments?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists