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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-Id: <20190822.141716.31265124292191524.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Thu, 22 Aug 2019 14:17:16 -0700 (PDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     casey@...aufler-ca.com
Cc:     paul@...l-moore.com, fw@...len.de, 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: Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 13:10:43 -0700

> Given that the original objection to using a skb extension for a
> security blob was that an extension is dynamic, and that the ubiquitous
> nature of LSM use makes that unreasonable, it would seem that supporting
> the security blob as a basic part if the skb would be the obvious and
> correct solution. If the normal case is that there is an LSM that would
> befit from the native (unextended) support of a blob, it would seem
> that that is the case that should be optimized.

The objection is the cost, either in terms of dynamic allocation or in
terms of fixed space allocated inside of the SKB.

If you are given a u32 (which you already have) it can be used as an
IDR-like space to look up pointers if necessary.