[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202009171504.841FA53@keescook>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 15:05:18 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: John Wood <john.wood@....com>
Cc: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.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
On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 08:40:06PM +0200, John Wood wrote:
> 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.
I don't feel too strongly, but I think having the CONFIG roughly match
the directory name, roughly match the function prefixes should be best.
Maybe call the directory and function prefix "brute"?
--
Kees Cook
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.
