From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jmorris@namei.org (James Morris) Date: Wed, 2 May 2018 04:49:38 +1000 (AEST) Subject: [PATCH v7 0/6] Safe LSM (un)loading, and immutable hooks In-Reply-To: References: <201804272225.DAC82348.OFtSVOJOHLFMQF@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <201804292049.CJG18734.FJMOOHVOFFQtSL@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <0cf314e6-af7d-7e93-4249-944431202327@schaufler-ca.com> Message-ID: To: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-security-module.vger.kernel.org On Mon, 30 Apr 2018, Sargun Dhillon wrote: > On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 2:16 PM, James Morris wrote: > > On Mon, 30 Apr 2018, Sargun Dhillon wrote: > > > >> I guess I'm just a little bit frustrated, because, in my mind, some of > >> my patches provide immediate value, and are ready to be reviewed, and > >> or respun. > > > > I'm not seeing much value in this functionality, given that SELinux is the > > only unloadable LSM, and that is really just an historical workaround > > which may be normalized at some point. > > > > Patch 1 may be useful on its own. > Do you not think patch 2 is also useful? Is it worth me re-rolling 1-2 > independently? > Yes, please split out the seq file change and submit them as independent changes. > Do you think not think that minor loadable LSMs are valuable? -- And > if so, do you think it's okay with, or without guardrails? Potentially, but we can't add infrastructure for non-existent or out of tree code. -- James Morris -- 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