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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABA54C3A59E for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 22:50:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CA6720856 for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 22:50:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730102AbfHUWuQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Aug 2019 18:50:16 -0400 Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.9]:34982 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729959AbfHUWuQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Aug 2019 18:50:16 -0400 Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2601:601:9f80:35cd::d71]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: davem-davemloft) by shards.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C51D014DE8714; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 15:50:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 15:50:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20190821.155013.1723892743521935274.davem@davemloft.net> To: paul@paul-moore.com Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, selinux@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: New skb extension for use by LSMs (skb "security blob")? From: David Miller In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Mew version 6.8 on Emacs 26.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.12 (shards.monkeyblade.net [149.20.54.216]); Wed, 21 Aug 2019 15:50:16 -0700 (PDT) Sender: owner-linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: From: Paul Moore Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 18:00:09 -0400 > I was just made aware of the skb extension work, and it looks very > appealing from a LSM perspective. As some of you probably remember, > we (the LSM folks) have wanted a proper security blob in the skb for > quite some time, but netdev has been resistant to this idea thus far. > > If I were to propose a patchset to add a SKB_EXT_SECURITY skb > extension (a single extension ID to be shared among the different > LSMs), would that be something that netdev would consider merging, or > is there still a philosophical objection to things like this? Unlike it's main intended user (MPTCP), it sounds like LSM's would use this in a way such that it would be enabled on most systems all the time. That really defeats the whole purpose of making it dynamic. :-/