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=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS 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 3C76DC47082 for ; Sat, 5 Jun 2021 18:18:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1767F6136D for ; Sat, 5 Jun 2021 18:18:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230060AbhFESU1 (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Jun 2021 14:20:27 -0400 Received: from mail-lj1-f180.google.com ([209.85.208.180]:44911 "EHLO mail-lj1-f180.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229996AbhFESUZ (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Jun 2021 14:20:25 -0400 Received: by mail-lj1-f180.google.com with SMTP id d2so11849178ljj.11 for ; Sat, 05 Jun 2021 11:18:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux-foundation.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=hWseLMsHC1Tl+tjltvawHbNPgfRx7qxCEi8/dkUNOU4=; b=dq91qTUDZfLAHHlQj01Xackwp7mLXGslcYSqKR8QjQWjay1MPlIiBx9Q2OjLRJv3Ny tUvoHIhp+fIOQUEt5cgx436HWwJytvd/+6hnvkb9my5cWuHI21RlTnevNOOSMWGTQ9Xp QlUNP5FJUEwnP+uHbMzVIztOiIoJLIajgm2Dk= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=hWseLMsHC1Tl+tjltvawHbNPgfRx7qxCEi8/dkUNOU4=; b=OXu+FPoJeoDVWVIs7TnPKET7EsWbPo4ypMbvv52RnHapSe08cd4O9C5LiEeFv38qCJ R3AqWrLNNkcTlIvXQIfQvPH1bC2s2mPV/zOXNu7Y7wpq3ruClsi9CATdeHtcCNgptfDu vPK7cJpMclRqSw6cD7CbrjoD68STvqs/XWhGDZ/XBKSIe8tVEjv8/09gUKeHtkkUILnk msZDItZUQ2wFbXGQ8kSynE9kvElXsM4nHc+3K1Smf4X0Zc9nKiTKrf9LXrT/qUN5qo/9 6PabMm8rC4WHZjd5OSVk0PcovSIlql73A+z2fIj5bjzfQ3QJnGgNsKe8f+tneDSrHkWa I3bg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531Zp8CzLf7+4sEdC/9cLM/cRBnSNqS/Qcc5+axhklUCtVq6qEtw df97jiUlRWAvPxjO1X+JpgWKGYoUknmLVGav4a8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzWmE5XnWRQGJ2IqZ1+1Zy4YLfPOCnbfYMptYzUQ1oVVeMjUtLIwWacwLrduXzL+ORDResB+w== X-Received: by 2002:a2e:870d:: with SMTP id m13mr8346842lji.250.1622917040459; Sat, 05 Jun 2021 11:17:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf1-f53.google.com (mail-lf1-f53.google.com. [209.85.167.53]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h8sm930142lfv.52.2021.06.05.11.17.18 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 05 Jun 2021 11:17:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf1-f53.google.com with SMTP id f11so18992285lfq.4 for ; Sat, 05 Jun 2021 11:17:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:374b:: with SMTP id a11mr6305938lfs.377.1622917038058; Sat, 05 Jun 2021 11:17:18 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210517092006.803332-1-omosnace@redhat.com> <01135120-8bf7-df2e-cff0-1d73f1f841c3@iogearbox.net> <2e541bdc-ae21-9a07-7ac7-6c6a4dda09e8@iogearbox.net> <3ca181e3-df32-9ae0-12c6-efb899b7ce7a@iogearbox.net> <64552a82-d878-b6e6-e650-52423153b624@schaufler-ca.com> In-Reply-To: <64552a82-d878-b6e6-e650-52423153b624@schaufler-ca.com> From: Linus Torvalds Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2021 11:17:02 -0700 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] lockdown,selinux: avoid bogus SELinux lockdown permission checks To: Casey Schaufler Cc: Alexei Starovoitov , Paul Moore , Daniel Borkmann , Ondrej Mosnacek , LSM List , James Morris , Steven Rostedt , Ingo Molnar , Stephen Smalley , SElinux list , ppc-dev , Linux-Fsdevel , bpf , Network Development , LKML , Jiri Olsa , Alexei Starovoitov , Andrii Nakryiko , "David S. Miller" , Jakub Kicinski Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Jun 5, 2021 at 11:11 AM Casey Schaufler wrote: > > You have fallen into a common fallacy. The fact that the "code runs" > does not assure that the "system works right". In the security world > we face this all the time, often with performance expectations. In this > case the BPF design has failed [..] I think it's the lockdown patches that have failed. They did the wrong thing, they didn't work, The report in question is for a regression. THERE ARE NO VALID ARGUMENTS FOR REGRESSIONS. Honestly, security people need to understand that "not working" is not a success case of security. It's a failure case. Yes, "not working" may be secure. But security in that case is *pointless*. Linus