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