From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e23smtp06.au.ibm.com ([202.81.31.148]:44261 "EHLO e23smtp06.au.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751162AbcAUVQM (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jan 2016 16:16:12 -0500 Received: from localhost by e23smtp06.au.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 22 Jan 2016 07:16:10 +1000 Message-ID: <1453410902.9549.184.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 08/11] module: replace copy_module_from_fd with kernel version From: Mimi Zohar To: Paul Moore Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" , Casey Schaufler , John Johansen , Tetsuo Handa , linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-modules@vger.kernel.org, fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, David Howells , David Woodhouse , Kees Cook , Dmitry Torokhov , Dmitry Kasatkin Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 16:15:02 -0500 In-Reply-To: <5369666.tSqfcRVJfN@sifl> References: <1453129886-20192-1-git-send-email-zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20160121000300.GN11277@wotan.suse.de> <1453381932.9549.131.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <5369666.tSqfcRVJfN@sifl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-linux-modules@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, 2016-01-21 at 10:45 -0500, Paul Moore wrote: > On Thursday, January 21, 2016 08:12:12 AM Mimi Zohar wrote: > > Paul, Casey, Kees, Jon, Tetsuo does it make sense to consolidate the > > module, firmware, and kexec pre and post security hooks and have just > > one set of pre and post security kernel_read_file hook instead? Does > > it make sense for this patch set to define the new hooks to allow the > > LSMs to migrate to it independently of each other? > > Well, as usual, the easiest way to both get solid feedback and actually get a > change accepted is to post patches to the affected LSMs. Probably not what > you wanted to hear, but at least I'm honest :) Unless I'm misreading the code, it might be a lot simpler than I thought. Of the three LSM hooks kernel_module_request, kernel_module_from_file, and kernel_fw_from_file, the only upstreamed LSM on any of these hooks is SELinux, which is only on the kernel_module_request hook. After converting the SELinux kernel_module_request hook to use the new kernel_read_file(), do I then remove the three hooks? Are we concerned about "minor" LSMs that have not been upstreamed that might be using these hooks? Mimi