From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 404C7ECAAA1 for ; Thu, 15 Sep 2022 14:27:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229449AbiIOO1P (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Sep 2022 10:27:15 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:41362 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229484AbiIOO1N (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Sep 2022 10:27:13 -0400 Received: from www262.sakura.ne.jp (www262.sakura.ne.jp [202.181.97.72]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE904DF33 for ; Thu, 15 Sep 2022 07:27:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fsav113.sakura.ne.jp (fsav113.sakura.ne.jp [27.133.134.240]) by www262.sakura.ne.jp (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 28FER9iX044275; Thu, 15 Sep 2022 23:27:09 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp) Received: from www262.sakura.ne.jp (202.181.97.72) by fsav113.sakura.ne.jp (F-Secure/fsigk_smtp/550/fsav113.sakura.ne.jp); Thu, 15 Sep 2022 23:27:09 +0900 (JST) X-Virus-Status: clean(F-Secure/fsigk_smtp/550/fsav113.sakura.ne.jp) Received: from [192.168.1.9] (M106072142033.v4.enabler.ne.jp [106.72.142.33]) (authenticated bits=0) by www262.sakura.ne.jp (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 28FER9kB044270 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 15 Sep 2022 23:27:09 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2022 23:27:08 +0900 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.2.2 Subject: Re: LSM stacking in next for 6.1? Content-Language: en-US To: Paul Moore Cc: Casey Schaufler , LSM List , James Morris , linux-audit@redhat.com, John Johansen , Mimi Zohar , keescook@chromium.org, SElinux list References: <791e13b5-bebd-12fc-53de-e9a86df23836.ref@schaufler-ca.com> <791e13b5-bebd-12fc-53de-e9a86df23836@schaufler-ca.com> <8ac2731c-a1db-df7b-3690-dac2b371e431@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <854c05ad-888e-b882-bb97-65f4ca289bc6@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> From: Tetsuo Handa In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: selinux@vger.kernel.org On 2022/09/14 22:56, Paul Moore wrote: > On Fri, Sep 9, 2022 at 7:33 AM Tetsuo Handa wrote: >> Inclusion into upstream is far from the goal. > > For better or worse, there is a long history of the upstream Linux > Kernel focusing only on in-tree kernel code, I see no reason why we > should change that now for LSMs. Because we can't afford accepting/maintaining whatever LSMs that are proposed. Do you think that we are going to accept/maintain whatever LSMs that are proposed if we get to the point to "The commitment I made to Paul some years ago now was that the stacking would eventually include making all combinations possible" ? I don't think so. Although the upstream Linux Kernel focuses only on in-tree kernel code, CONFIG_MODULES=y is not limited for in-tree kernel code. It is used by e.g. device vendors to deliver their out-of-tree driver code. Then, I see no reason why we can't do the same for LSMs. We simply don't need to "provide efforts for fixing bugs in whatever LSMs"; we simply should "allow whatever LSMs to exist". From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49FB6C6FA8A for ; Thu, 15 Sep 2022 14:28:02 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1663252081; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:list-id:list-help: list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-post; bh=Iq7DsOADi1IvjI3vceU33ymzYdJLqKsr+USgwZ4KzRw=; b=akcIeA3luIJcJBP+lLkXC4hgCPTqOLt72ftZnM1SKSv5qCRXSX8FuIT5tIvTiwGf+Dcspj BelHItzCTooeI2VQEbU/HMG7vLCTJku9hwJW3ylFxjiAXjctI+DWoHtS/z8ItCg//EwrHX r20MJBst41wjQtOYQLTuiKM39qRtcNg= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-226-HJ1wPD8OOBqju4tOs2rPBw-1; Thu, 15 Sep 2022 10:27:58 -0400 X-MC-Unique: HJ1wPD8OOBqju4tOs2rPBw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F56D8828C3; Thu, 15 Sep 2022 14:27:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mm-prod-listman-01.mail-001.prod.us-east-1.aws.redhat.com (unknown [10.30.29.100]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34BEA2084836; Thu, 15 Sep 2022 14:27:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mm-prod-listman-01.mail-001.prod.us-east-1.aws.redhat.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mm-prod-listman-01.mail-001.prod.us-east-1.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E40D21946587; Thu, 15 Sep 2022 14:27:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.8]) by mm-prod-listman-01.mail-001.prod.us-east-1.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1EAD1946586 for ; Thu, 15 Sep 2022 14:27:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) id D44FAC15BB1; Thu, 15 Sep 2022 14:27:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast03.extmail.prod.ext.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.55.19]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0532C15BAB for ; Thu, 15 Sep 2022 14:27:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from us-smtp-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-2.mimecast.com [207.211.31.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A438A87A385 for ; Thu, 15 Sep 2022 14:27:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from www262.sakura.ne.jp (www262.sakura.ne.jp [202.181.97.72]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-663-qf6riZ4qORCT4pyAKsBJzA-1; Thu, 15 Sep 2022 10:27:27 -0400 X-MC-Unique: qf6riZ4qORCT4pyAKsBJzA-1 Received: from fsav113.sakura.ne.jp (fsav113.sakura.ne.jp [27.133.134.240]) by www262.sakura.ne.jp (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 28FER9iX044275; Thu, 15 Sep 2022 23:27:09 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp) Received: from www262.sakura.ne.jp (202.181.97.72) by fsav113.sakura.ne.jp (F-Secure/fsigk_smtp/550/fsav113.sakura.ne.jp); Thu, 15 Sep 2022 23:27:09 +0900 (JST) X-Virus-Status: clean(F-Secure/fsigk_smtp/550/fsav113.sakura.ne.jp) Received: from [192.168.1.9] (M106072142033.v4.enabler.ne.jp [106.72.142.33]) (authenticated bits=0) by www262.sakura.ne.jp (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 28FER9kB044270 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 15 Sep 2022 23:27:09 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2022 23:27:08 +0900 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.2.2 Subject: Re: LSM stacking in next for 6.1? To: Paul Moore References: <791e13b5-bebd-12fc-53de-e9a86df23836.ref@schaufler-ca.com> <791e13b5-bebd-12fc-53de-e9a86df23836@schaufler-ca.com> <8ac2731c-a1db-df7b-3690-dac2b371e431@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <854c05ad-888e-b882-bb97-65f4ca289bc6@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> From: Tetsuo Handa In-Reply-To: X-Mimecast-Impersonation-Protect: Policy=CLT - Impersonation Protection Definition; Similar Internal Domain=false; Similar Monitored External Domain=false; Custom External Domain=false; Mimecast External Domain=false; Newly Observed Domain=false; Internal User Name=false; Custom Display Name List=false; Reply-to Address Mismatch=false; Targeted Threat Dictionary=false; Mimecast Threat Dictionary=false; Custom Threat Dictionary=false X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.8 X-BeenThere: linux-audit@redhat.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux Audit Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: John Johansen , SElinux list , James Morris , Mimi Zohar , LSM List , linux-audit@redhat.com Errors-To: linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com Sender: "Linux-audit" X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.4 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 2022/09/14 22:56, Paul Moore wrote: > On Fri, Sep 9, 2022 at 7:33 AM Tetsuo Handa wrote: >> Inclusion into upstream is far from the goal. > > For better or worse, there is a long history of the upstream Linux > Kernel focusing only on in-tree kernel code, I see no reason why we > should change that now for LSMs. Because we can't afford accepting/maintaining whatever LSMs that are proposed. Do you think that we are going to accept/maintain whatever LSMs that are proposed if we get to the point to "The commitment I made to Paul some years ago now was that the stacking would eventually include making all combinations possible" ? I don't think so. Although the upstream Linux Kernel focuses only on in-tree kernel code, CONFIG_MODULES=y is not limited for in-tree kernel code. It is used by e.g. device vendors to deliver their out-of-tree driver code. Then, I see no reason why we can't do the same for LSMs. We simply don't need to "provide efforts for fixing bugs in whatever LSMs"; we simply should "allow whatever LSMs to exist". -- Linux-audit mailing list Linux-audit@redhat.com https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit