From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753257AbdDKEns (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Apr 2017 00:43:48 -0400 Received: from mail-io0-f175.google.com ([209.85.223.175]:34091 "EHLO mail-io0-f175.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752585AbdDKEnq (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Apr 2017 00:43:46 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1491734530-25002-1-git-send-email-tixxdz@gmail.com> <1491734530-25002-2-git-send-email-tixxdz@gmail.com> <2698e97b-397e-0fc0-84a1-dc9a4226117a@schaufler-ca.com> From: Kees Cook Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 21:43:45 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 2IXZOBTPiBhiMtUCsaR7CZUW0Ns Message-ID: Subject: Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/3] LSM: Allow per LSM module per "struct task_struct" blob. To: Djalal Harouni Cc: Casey Schaufler , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Andy Lutomirski , Andrew Morton , "kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com" , LSM List , Linux API , Dongsu Park , James Morris , "Serge E. Hallyn" , Paul Moore , Tetsuo Handa , Greg Kroah-Hartman Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 1:00 PM, Djalal Harouni wrote: > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 9:26 PM, Casey Schaufler wrote: >> I think that would be the prudent approach. There is still >> the possibility that blob sharing (or full stacking, if you >> prefer) won't be accepted any time soon. > > Ok Casey! I will wait for more feedback, and if other maintainers do > not object, I will convert it back to rhashtables in next iterations > making sure that it should be simple to convert later to a blob > sharing mechanism. Would it be possible just to add a single field to task_struct if this LSM is built in? I feel like rhashtables is a huge overhead when a single field is all that's needed. -Kees -- Kees Cook Pixel Security From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kees Cook Subject: Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/3] LSM: Allow per LSM module per "struct task_struct" blob. Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 21:43:45 -0700 Message-ID: References: <1491734530-25002-1-git-send-email-tixxdz@gmail.com> <1491734530-25002-2-git-send-email-tixxdz@gmail.com> <2698e97b-397e-0fc0-84a1-dc9a4226117a@schaufler-ca.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-api-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Djalal Harouni Cc: Casey Schaufler , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Andy Lutomirski , Andrew Morton , "kernel-hardening-ZwoEplunGu1jrUoiu81ncdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org" , LSM List , Linux API , Dongsu Park , James Morris , "Serge E. Hallyn" , Paul Moore , Tetsuo Handa , Greg Kroah-Hartman List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 1:00 PM, Djalal Harouni wrote: > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 9:26 PM, Casey Schaufler wrote: >> I think that would be the prudent approach. There is still >> the possibility that blob sharing (or full stacking, if you >> prefer) won't be accepted any time soon. > > Ok Casey! I will wait for more feedback, and if other maintainers do > not object, I will convert it back to rhashtables in next iterations > making sure that it should be simple to convert later to a blob > sharing mechanism. Would it be possible just to add a single field to task_struct if this LSM is built in? I feel like rhashtables is a huge overhead when a single field is all that's needed. -Kees -- Kees Cook Pixel Security From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: keescook@chromium.org (Kees Cook) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 21:43:45 -0700 Subject: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/3] LSM: Allow per LSM module per "struct task_struct" blob. In-Reply-To: References: <1491734530-25002-1-git-send-email-tixxdz@gmail.com> <1491734530-25002-2-git-send-email-tixxdz@gmail.com> <2698e97b-397e-0fc0-84a1-dc9a4226117a@schaufler-ca.com> Message-ID: To: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-security-module.vger.kernel.org On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 1:00 PM, Djalal Harouni wrote: > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 9:26 PM, Casey Schaufler wrote: >> I think that would be the prudent approach. There is still >> the possibility that blob sharing (or full stacking, if you >> prefer) won't be accepted any time soon. > > Ok Casey! I will wait for more feedback, and if other maintainers do > not object, I will convert it back to rhashtables in next iterations > making sure that it should be simple to convert later to a blob > sharing mechanism. Would it be possible just to add a single field to task_struct if this LSM is built in? I feel like rhashtables is a huge overhead when a single field is all that's needed. -Kees -- Kees Cook Pixel Security -- 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 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: keescook@google.com In-Reply-To: References: <1491734530-25002-1-git-send-email-tixxdz@gmail.com> <1491734530-25002-2-git-send-email-tixxdz@gmail.com> <2698e97b-397e-0fc0-84a1-dc9a4226117a@schaufler-ca.com> From: Kees Cook Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 21:43:45 -0700 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/3] LSM: Allow per LSM module per "struct task_struct" blob. To: Djalal Harouni Cc: Casey Schaufler , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Andy Lutomirski , Andrew Morton , "kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com" , LSM List , Linux API , Dongsu Park , James Morris , "Serge E. Hallyn" , Paul Moore , Tetsuo Handa , Greg Kroah-Hartman List-ID: On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 1:00 PM, Djalal Harouni wrote: > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 9:26 PM, Casey Schaufler wrote: >> I think that would be the prudent approach. There is still >> the possibility that blob sharing (or full stacking, if you >> prefer) won't be accepted any time soon. > > Ok Casey! I will wait for more feedback, and if other maintainers do > not object, I will convert it back to rhashtables in next iterations > making sure that it should be simple to convert later to a blob > sharing mechanism. Would it be possible just to add a single field to task_struct if this LSM is built in? I feel like rhashtables is a huge overhead when a single field is all that's needed. -Kees -- Kees Cook Pixel Security