Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 12:57:58 -0700
From: Kees Cook <>
To: Casey Schaufler <>
Cc: Djalal Harouni <>, 
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <>, Andy Lutomirski <>, 
	Andrew Morton <>, 
	"" <>, 
	LSM List <>, 
	Linux API <>, Dongsu Park <>, 
	James Morris <>, "Serge E. Hallyn" <>, 
	Paul Moore <>, Tetsuo Handa <>, 
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/3] LSM: Allow per LSM
 module per "struct task_struct" blob.

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Casey Schaufler
<> wrote:
> On 4/10/2017 9:43 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 1:00 PM, Djalal Harouni <> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 9:26 PM, Casey Schaufler <> 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.
> Special casing the task_struct based on which modules
> are compiled in would work, but I'm under the impression
> that there's a strong desire to keep to one pointer for
> security module information in the major structures.

Right, I meant as far as keeping this patch set unblocked by the other one...


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.