[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4821f909-8885-654d-701e-3044c79d055f@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 14:37:39 +0300
From: Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...wei.com>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>, <jglisse@...hat.com>,
<keescook@...omium.org>, <mhocko@...nel.org>, <jmorris@...ei.org>,
<labbott@...hat.com>, <hch@...radead.org>, <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
CC: <paul@...l-moore.com>, <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
<linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 0/3] mm: security: ro protection for dynamic data
On 11/07/17 14:12, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Igor Stoppa wrote:
>> - I had to rebase Tetsuo Handa's patch because it didn't apply cleanly
>> anymore, I would appreciate an ACK to that or a revised patch, whatever
>> comes easier.
>
> Since we are getting several proposals of changing LSM hooks and both your proposal
> and Casey's "LSM: Security module blob management" proposal touch same files, I think
> we can break these changes into small pieces so that both you and Casey can make
> future versions smaller.
>
> If nobody has objections about direction of Igor's proposal and Casey's proposal,
> I think merging only "[PATCH 2/3] LSM: Convert security_hook_heads into explicit
> array of struct list_head" from Igor's proposal and ->security accessor wrappers (e.g.
I would like to understand if there is still interest about:
* "[PATCH 1/3] Protectable memory support" which was my main interest
* "[PATCH 3/3] Make LSM Writable Hooks a command line option"
which was the example of how to use [1/3]
> #define selinux_security(obj) (obj->security)
> #define smack_security(obj) (obj->security)
> #define tomoyo_security(obj) (obj->security)
> #define apparmor_security(obj) (obj->security)
For example, I see that there are various kzalloc calls that might be
useful to turn into pmalloc ones.
In general, I'd think that, after a transient is complete, where modules
are loaded by allocating dynamic data structures, they could be locked
down in read-only mode.
I have the feeling that, now that I have polished up the pmalloc patch,
the proposed use case is fading away.
Can it be adjusted to the new situation or should I look elsewhere for
an example that would justify merging pmalloc?
thanks, igor
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.
