netdev - Re: [PATCH] xfrm: kill xfrm_dev_{state,policy}_flush_secctx

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: <CAHC9VhRzRAR+hhn4TFADnHWpzjOxjmh0S_Hg_HktkPkKQ35ycg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2026 17:40:46 -0500
From: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
Cc: SELinux <selinux@...r.kernel.org>, 
	linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>, 
	Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>, Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, 
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, 
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, 
	Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfrm: kill xfrm_dev_{state,policy}_flush_secctx_check()

On Mon, Feb 2, 2026 at 10:48 PM Tetsuo Handa
<penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp> wrote:
> On 2026/02/02 13:07, Paul Moore wrote:
> > I'm asking you to verify that we have the LSM xfrm hooks in all of the
> > necessary locations to ensure that we are safely and comprehensively
> > gating all of the operations that result in removal of SPD and SAD
> > entries.
>
> That is impossible. We can't have the LSM xfrm hooks in all locations
> that result in removal of SPD and SAD entries.

It's a good thing that isn't what I said.  I said "... LSM xfrm hooks
in all of the
necessary locations to ensure that we are safely and COMPREHENSIVELY
GATING all of the operations that result in removal of SPD and SAD
entries."  I used the capitalization to emphasize the idea that the
goal is a comprehensive gating of the operations, not necessarily a
placement of LSM hooks in all of the functions.  It can be a subtle
difference, but it is an important one as I think you can understand.

> It is your role (not my role) to verify that we have the LSM xfrm hooks in all
> of the necessary locations, for it is you who is wishing to ensure that we are
> safely and comprehensively gating all of the operations that result in removal
> of SPD and SAD entries.

All of us who contribute upstream have a responsibility to ensure the
proper operation and maintenance of the upstream Linux kernel, this is
especially true for individuals such as yourself who have accepted a
maintainer role.

You have identified what appear to be issues with the upstream kernel,
and have proposed changes to address that.  While reviewing those
changes I asked you to verify that the LSM hooks associated with your
proposed change were still working as expected, since it was not clear
from the discussion, or the patch, that an investigation had taken
place.  This is not an unusual request for such a proposed change, and
is something that I would expect a LSM maintainer to do without much
hesitation.  If you are unwilling to investigate this, can you explain
why?

-- 
paul-moore.com