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 CFB8CC64EC4 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2023 16:26:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231597AbjCJQ0S (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Mar 2023 11:26:18 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:45248 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231589AbjCJQ0E (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Mar 2023 11:26:04 -0500 Received: from mail-pj1-x102c.google.com (mail-pj1-x102c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102c]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 10C2810F0 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2023 08:22:31 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pj1-x102c.google.com with SMTP id h17-20020a17090aea9100b0023739b10792so5681685pjz.1 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2023 08:22:31 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=paul-moore.com; s=google; t=1678465342; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=a1xKJv7I43t6QQTItfrGRf70Ny8ji2NWl1/miCvddqg=; b=OCevYKE85PtLl+hcvLgkZwQ3myHlzDiEeMuoDh23Zzra4od6divy+o1JQQWdUhuk9A o4/mgex6y9FDuZP3YNRgPHvXlyeMxVZl9OubIvYXQvW78EvctrppmPeakW5g8LZ61vjI vWlBHtkqDhwJ/7KPaoyQ/JAsJhJk5BvulX6le0dXxyrKDw/5ho2SkEydVEBrLfOMYdN4 Zl/piiv2GK4Ycw+i0t34hH41UELJkzVOJ+aB3MTTnOaYrocKdG7AhEhhFCM0UJFBoPWD IRUc8VGFMj9wnEVSfLtr5OG1mz/vRgfCXsWz0dgx+voqI/DjOmVSO7IcTRjwKyneN0xe iHfQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1678465342; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=a1xKJv7I43t6QQTItfrGRf70Ny8ji2NWl1/miCvddqg=; b=eN4UtHQE4ItyiZMM1eHIvcRsgAJFPIpgER2hQxFHdzPVGuPEbWq1kL8ld3ElUv4424 W6KxezxBBglpNLSBXba9dbaElTdCAzH1ASuofqwepRZUCpOAVchJiLqtx9YpVtQuc5zO qq01rYsC3TIW5Dof+2jBdSJODOEA/Uo1pgzjriYTGIlrkgG23nwZyewR+/nlzIf5Kkl0 7gIYRLTJ1MBOgiKEF5mrZfMwzW8IZaZ9xD9QbdXkry5WgltoicwPIJtNoHxyGSIE7qyR 8lgpQ2u5ABiKosdjVuxDhF9tMNXSj3V6zGIjujEjUS7u2yLMYSfNlEZdQKxO2HgF2b5g qp2w== X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKWJL55/UHv1vYlmQAiut6ryo5cop2cYOzTboo2aII5F4RgeUur3 lwHzMChniAEF8nHVe22WAsLWCkGBdNeWWHj/nFpB X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set9wiX9m/wyVQBYpK751vhyyv8tPww9RBQvJarvcNt2JTkPo0CSGYU9kGj441+l+YuH9JiTiVzuzQQpKcYNdobY= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:dc0d:b0:235:1fb7:393c with SMTP id i13-20020a17090adc0d00b002351fb7393cmr1121568pjv.1.1678465342401; Fri, 10 Mar 2023 08:22:22 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20230309085433.1810314-1-roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com> <20230309085433.1810314-2-roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com> <397cb437bbd41e7eb223a07bc92a10bb57df696e.camel@linux.ibm.com> <3c2ad86758d13939afa9dceaab87fee2ded8201f.camel@linux.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <3c2ad86758d13939afa9dceaab87fee2ded8201f.camel@linux.ibm.com> From: Paul Moore Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2023 11:22:11 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] security: Introduce LSM_ORDER_LAST and set it for the integrity LSM To: Mimi Zohar Cc: Roberto Sassu , dmitry.kasatkin@gmail.com, jmorris@namei.org, serge@hallyn.com, mic@digikod.net, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, keescook@chromium.org, Roberto Sassu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 8:39=E2=80=AFAM Mimi Zohar wr= ote: > On Thu, 2023-03-09 at 17:04 -0500, Paul Moore wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 8:21=E2=80=AFAM Mimi Zohar = wrote: > > > On Thu, 2023-03-09 at 09:54 +0100, Roberto Sassu wrote: > > > > From: Roberto Sassu > > > > > > > > Introduce LSM_ORDER_LAST, to satisfy the requirement of LSMs needin= g to be > > > > last, e.g. the 'integrity' LSM, without changing the kernel command= line or > > > > configuration. > > > > > > > > Also, set this order for the 'integrity' LSM. While not enforced, t= his is > > > > the only LSM expected to use it. > > > > > > > > Similarly to LSM_ORDER_FIRST, LSMs with LSM_ORDER_LAST are always e= nabled > > > > and put at the end of the LSM list. > > > > > > > > Finally, for LSM_ORDER_MUTABLE LSMs, set the found variable to true= if an > > > > LSM is found, regardless of its order. In this way, the kernel woul= d not > > > > wrongly report that the LSM is not built-in in the kernel if its or= der is > > > > LSM_ORDER_LAST. > > > > > > > > Fixes: 79f7865d844c ("LSM: Introduce "lsm=3D" for boottime LSM sele= ction") > > > > Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Mimi Zohar > > > > Warning: procedural nitpicking ahead ... > > > > The 'Signed-off-by' tag is in reference to the DCO, which makes sense > > to add if you are a patch author or are merging a patch into a tree, > > but it doesn't make much sense as a ACK/thumbs-up; this is why we have > > the 'Acked-by' and 'Reviewed-by' tags. I generally read the > > 'Acked-by' tag as "I'm the one responsible for a chunk of code > > affected by this patch and I'm okay with this change" and the > > 'Reviewed-by' tag as "I looked at this patch and it looks like a good > > change to me". Perhaps surprisingly to some, while an 'Acked-by' is a > > requirement for merging in a lot of cases, I appreciate 'Reviewed-by' > > tags much more as it indicates the patch is getting some third-part > > eyeballs on it ... so all you lurkers on this list, if you're > > reviewing patches as they hit your inbox, don't be shy about posting > > your 'Reviewed-by' tag if your comfortable doing so, we all welcome > > the help :) > > > > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html#= sign-your-work-the-developer-s-certificate-of-origin > > In this case, it was a bit unclear who actually was going to upstream > this patch set. FWIW, I wasn't expecting to see your sign-off without a note that you had merged it. Normally I would have expected either an acked-by or a note that you had merged it, a sign-off without a merge notice seemed a little odd to me so I thought I would mention the above :) No harm either way, I just figured a little discussion on process might not be a terrible idea to make sure we are all on the same page. > It's better that you upstream it, but since this > affects subsequent IMA and EVM patches, please create a topic branch. I generally don't do topic branches for work that has been merged into a -next or -stable branch. I prefer to limit topic branches to special-cases where there is some value in keeping a central branch for multiple people to coordinate while the patchset is still in development; once a patchset has progressed far enough to be merged into a -stable or -next branch I stop maintaining the topic branch. In this particular case the changes to the IMA/EVM code looked very minor, so I doubt there would be a significant merge conflict with the IMA/EVM tree during this development cycle, but if you would prefer to take this patchset via the IMA/EVM tree that is okay with me; just let me know so I can ACK the two LSM-related patches (I'm going to review the latest posting today). As a bit of an aside, while this doesn't cover topic branches (once again, I consider those special cases), when managing the LSM tree I follow the process that is documented here: https://github.com/LinuxSecurityModule/kernel/blob/main/README.md [NOTE: the above GH repo is a read-only mirror of the canonical LSM kernel.org repo, it just happens that GH does a better job rendering txt] The main LSM repo process "docs" / pointers can be found in the main README or "about" page: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/pcmoore/lsm.git/about If people have suggestions for a different approach to managing the LSM tree I'm always open to discussion. --=20 paul-moore.com