[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200917175146.GB3637@ubuntu>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 20:40:06 +0200
From: John Wood <john.wood@....com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
John Wood <john.wood@....com>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@...gle.com>, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/6] security/fbfam: Add a Kconfig to enable the
fbfam feature
Hi,
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 04:18:08PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 01:21:02PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > From: John Wood <john.wood@....com>
> >
> > Add a menu entry under "Security options" to enable the "Fork brute
> > force attack mitigation" feature.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: John Wood <john.wood@....com>
> > ---
> > security/Kconfig | 1 +
> > security/fbfam/Kconfig | 10 ++++++++++
> > 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+)
> > create mode 100644 security/fbfam/Kconfig
> >
> > diff --git a/security/Kconfig b/security/Kconfig
> > index 7561f6f99f1d..00a90e25b8d5 100644
> > --- a/security/Kconfig
> > +++ b/security/Kconfig
> > @@ -290,6 +290,7 @@ config LSM
> > If unsure, leave this as the default.
> >
> > source "security/Kconfig.hardening"
> > +source "security/fbfam/Kconfig"
>
> Given the layout you've chosen and the interface you've got, I think
> this should just be treated like a regular LSM.
Yes, throughout the review it seems the most appropiate is treat
this feature as a regular LSM. Thanks.
> >
> > endmenu
> >
> > diff --git a/security/fbfam/Kconfig b/security/fbfam/Kconfig
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..bbe7f6aad369
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/security/fbfam/Kconfig
> > @@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
> > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > +config FBFAM
>
> To jump on the bikeshed: how about just calling this
> FORK_BRUTE_FORCE_DETECTION or FORK_BRUTE, and the directory could be
> "brute", etc. "fbfam" doesn't tell anyone anything.
Understood. But how about use the fbfam abbreviation in the code? Like as
function name prefix, struct name prefix, ... It would be better to use a
more descriptive name in this scenario? It is not clear to me.
> --
> Kees Cook
Thanks,
John Wood
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.
