netdev - Re: New skb extension for use by LSMs (skb "security blob")?

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: <20190821.155013.1723892743521935274.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Wed, 21 Aug 2019 15:50:13 -0700 (PDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     paul@...l-moore.com
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        selinux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: New skb extension for use by LSMs (skb "security blob")?

From: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 18:00:09 -0400

> I was just made aware of the skb extension work, and it looks very
> appealing from a LSM perspective.  As some of you probably remember,
> we (the LSM folks) have wanted a proper security blob in the skb for
> quite some time, but netdev has been resistant to this idea thus far.
> 
> If I were to propose a patchset to add a SKB_EXT_SECURITY skb
> extension (a single extension ID to be shared among the different
> LSMs), would that be something that netdev would consider merging, or
> is there still a philosophical objection to things like this?

Unlike it's main intended user (MPTCP), it sounds like LSM's would use
this in a way such that it would be enabled on most systems all the
time.

That really defeats the whole purpose of making it dynamic. :-/