[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jL7jLid57UoXCxSqo5JZRLMgZ7X6BSYgWLckp5YpoiAmA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 21:43:45 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...il.com>
Cc: Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>, Dongsu Park <dpark@...teo.net>,
James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>, "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>, Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/3] LSM: Allow per LSM
module per "struct task_struct" blob.
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 1:00 PM, Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...il.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 9:26 PM, Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com> 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
