[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAEiveUe=QWr3-K4gPH602MNz4XNr2FL3mRqzYfKo5C-g=-ZSBw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 18:22:01 +0200
From: Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...il.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
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 Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 6:43 AM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> 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.
Well, yes rhashtables can have an overhead especially when reclaiming
memory back, I could not identify a way how to separate tables unless
we use cgroups as an ID. Anyway this of course could be added in
task_struct and updated to work like the capability security hooks
rather than a proper LSM with its own name. But as noted in the other
response, we may need task->security field for Yama anyway. I'm open
to suggestion ? I may try to converge the task->security blob with
what Casey is proposing and see! otherwise fallback to task_struct as
a last resort!
Thanks!
--
tixxdz
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.
