[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180329145036.00155b1e@lwn.net>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 14:50:36 -0600
From: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To: Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...il.com>
Cc: Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...wei.com>, willy@...radead.org,
keescook@...omium.org, mhocko@...nel.org, david@...morbit.com,
rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, labbott@...hat.com,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v21 0/6] mm: security: ro protection for dynamic
data
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 00:25:22 +0400
Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...il.com> wrote:
> On 27/03/18 20:55, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 18:37:36 +0300
> > Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...wei.com> wrote:
> >
> >> This patch-set introduces the possibility of protecting memory that has
> >> been allocated dynamically.
> >
> > One thing that jumps out at me as I look at the patch set is: you do not
> > include any users of this functionality. Where do you expect this
> > allocator to be used? Actually seeing the API in action would be a useful
> > addition, I think.
>
> Yes, this is very true.
> Initially I had in mind to use LSM hooks as easy example, but sadly they
> seem to be in an almost constant flux.
>
> My real use case is to secure both those and the SELinux policy DB.
> I have said this few times, but it didn't seem to be worth mentioning in
> the cover letter.
In general, it is quite hard to merge a new API without users to go along
with it. Among other things, that's how reviewers can see how well the
API works in real-world use. I am certainly not the one who will make the
decision on whether this goes in, but I suspect that whoever *does* make
that decision would prefer to see some users.
Thanks,
jon
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.
