From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751572AbdE3Oa7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 May 2017 10:30:59 -0400 Received: from www262.sakura.ne.jp ([202.181.97.72]:16623 "EHLO www262.sakura.ne.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751004AbdE3Oa6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 May 2017 10:30:58 -0400 To: jmorris@namei.org Cc: keescook@chromium.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, casey@schaufler-ca.com, hch@infradead.org, igor.stoppa@huawei.com, james.l.morris@oracle.com, paul@paul-moore.com, sds@tycho.nsa.gov Subject: Re: [PATCH] LSM: Convert security_hook_heads into explicit array of struct list_head From: Tetsuo Handa References: <1495883858-3336-1-git-send-email-penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <201705281026.EHD04622.HJFOLQFMSOtFOV@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <201705302329.IEB05735.FLJOFHSQVtOOFM@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> X-Mailer: Winbiff [Version 2.51 PL2] X-Accept-Language: ja,en,zh Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 23:29:10 +0900 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org James Morris wrote: > On Sun, 28 May 2017, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > > can afford enabling". And we know that we cannot merge all security modules > > into mainline. Thus, allowing LKM-based LSM modules is inevitable. > > Nope, it's not inevitable. The LSM API only caters to in-tree users. > > I'm not sure why you persist against this. Then, we are willing to accept LSM modules with users less than 10, aren't we? Forcing users to patch and recompile is as heartless as forcing CONFIG_MODULES=n. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp (Tetsuo Handa) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 23:29:10 +0900 Subject: [PATCH] LSM: Convert security_hook_heads into explicit array of struct list_head In-Reply-To: References: <1495883858-3336-1-git-send-email-penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <201705281026.EHD04622.HJFOLQFMSOtFOV@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> Message-ID: <201705302329.IEB05735.FLJOFHSQVtOOFM@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> To: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-security-module.vger.kernel.org James Morris wrote: > On Sun, 28 May 2017, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > > can afford enabling". And we know that we cannot merge all security modules > > into mainline. Thus, allowing LKM-based LSM modules is inevitable. > > Nope, it's not inevitable. The LSM API only caters to in-tree users. > > I'm not sure why you persist against this. Then, we are willing to accept LSM modules with users less than 10, aren't we? Forcing users to patch and recompile is as heartless as forcing CONFIG_MODULES=n. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tetsuo Handa References: <1495883858-3336-1-git-send-email-penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <201705281026.EHD04622.HJFOLQFMSOtFOV@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <201705302329.IEB05735.FLJOFHSQVtOOFM@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 23:29:10 +0900 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH] LSM: Convert security_hook_heads into explicit array of struct list_head To: jmorris@namei.org Cc: keescook@chromium.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, casey@schaufler-ca.com, hch@infradead.org, igor.stoppa@huawei.com, james.l.morris@oracle.com, paul@paul-moore.com, sds@tycho.nsa.gov List-ID: James Morris wrote: > On Sun, 28 May 2017, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > > can afford enabling". And we know that we cannot merge all security modules > > into mainline. Thus, allowing LKM-based LSM modules is inevitable. > > Nope, it's not inevitable. The LSM API only caters to in-tree users. > > I'm not sure why you persist against this. Then, we are willing to accept LSM modules with users less than 10, aren't we? Forcing users to patch and recompile is as heartless as forcing CONFIG_MODULES=n.