Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 14:12:26 +0300
From: Igor Stoppa <>
To: Tetsuo Handa <>,
        <>, <>, <>,
CC: <>, <>, <>,
        <>, <>,
        <>, <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] Make LSM Writable Hooks a command line option

On 06/06/17 13:54, Tetsuo Handa wrote:


> "Loading modules which are not compiled as built-in" is correct.
> My use case is to allow users to use LSM modules as loadable kernel
> modules which distributors do not compile as built-in.

Ok, so I suppose someone should eventually lock down the header, after
the additional modules are loaded.

Who decides when enough is enough, meaning that all the needed modules
are loaded?
Should I provide an interface to user-space? A sysfs entry?


> Unloading LSM modules is dangerous. Only SELinux allows unloading
> at the risk of triggering an oops. If we insert delay while removing
> list elements, we can easily observe oops due to free function being
> called without corresponding allocation function.

Ok. But even in this case, the sys proposal would still work.
It would just stay unused.


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.