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]
Date:   Tue, 9 Aug 2022 17:51:50 -0700
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <>
To:     Paul Moore <>
Cc:     "Eric W. Biederman" <>,
        Frederick Lawler <>,
        KP Singh <>,
        Florent Revest <>,
        Brendan Jackman <>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <>,
        Daniel Borkmann <>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <>,
        Song Liu <>, Yonghong Song <>,
        John Fastabend <>,
        James Morris <>,
        "Serge E . Hallyn" <>,
        Stephen Smalley <>,, Shuah Khan <>,
        Christian Brauner <>,
        Casey Schaufler <>,
        bpf <>,
        LSM List <>,,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        LKML <>,
        Network Development <>,
        kernel-team <>,
        Christian Göttsche <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] Introduce security_create_user_ns()

On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 3:40 PM Paul Moore <> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 5:41 PM Eric W. Biederman <> wrote:
> > Paul Moore <> writes:
> > >
> > > What level of due diligence would satisfy you Eric?
> >
> > Having a real conversation about what a change is doing and to talk
> > about it's merits and it's pro's and cons.  I can't promise I would be
> > convinced but that is the kind of conversation it would take.
> Earlier today you talked about due diligence to ensure that userspace
> won't break and I provided my reasoning on why userspace would not
> break (at least not because of this change).  Userspace might be
> blocked from creating a new user namespace due to a security policy,
> but that would be the expected and desired outcome, not breakage.  As
> far as your most recent comment regarding merit and pros/cons, I
> believe we have had that discussion (quite a few times already); it
> just seems you are not satisfied with the majority's conclusion.
> Personally, I'm not sure there is anything more I can do to convince
> you that this patchset is reasonable; I'm going to leave it to others
> at this point, or we can all simply agree to disagree for the moment.
> Just as you haven't heard a compelling argument for this patchset, I
> haven't heard a compelling argument against it.  Barring some
> significant new discussion point, or opinion, I still plan on merging
> this into the LSM next branch when the merge window closes next week
> so it has time to go through a full round of linux-next testing.
> Assuming no unresolvable problems are found during the additional
> testing I plan to send it to Linus during the v6.1 merge window and
> I'm guessing we will get to go through this all again.  It's less than
> ideal, but I think this is where we are at right now.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists