Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/3] LSM: Allow per LSM module per "struct task_struct" blob.

From	Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/3] LSM: Allow per LSM module per "struct task_struct" blob.
Date	2017-04-11 22:00 +0200
Message-ID	<tva7g-2VS-7@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	(3 earlier) <tuMoh-4s3-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <tuNaF-50X-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <tuNNo-5x7-25@gated-at.bofh.it> <tuVUB-2g1-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <tva7g-2VS-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Casey Schaufler
<casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote:
> On 4/10/2017 9:43 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 1:00 PM, Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 9:26 PM, Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote:
>>>> I think that would be the prudent approach. There is still
>>>> the possibility that blob sharing (or full stacking, if you
>>>> prefer) won't be accepted any time soon.
>>> Ok Casey! I will wait for more feedback, and if other maintainers do
>>> not object, I will convert it back to rhashtables in next iterations
>>> making sure that it should be simple to convert later to a blob
>>> sharing mechanism.
>> Would it be possible just to add a single field to task_struct if this
>> LSM is built in? I feel like rhashtables is a huge overhead when a
>> single field is all that's needed.
>
> Special casing the task_struct based on which modules
> are compiled in would work, but I'm under the impression
> that there's a strong desire to keep to one pointer for
> security module information in the major structures.

Right, I meant as far as keeping this patch set unblocked by the other one...

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security

Thread

Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/3] LSM: Allow per LSM module per "struct  task_struct" blob. Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> - 2017-04-10 18:00 +0200
  Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/3] LSM: Allow per LSM module per "struct  task_struct" blob. Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 20:40 +0200
    Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/3] LSM: Allow per LSM module per "struct  task_struct" blob. Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> - 2017-04-10 21:30 +0200
      Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/3] LSM: Allow per LSM module per "struct  task_struct" blob. Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 22:10 +0200
        Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/3] LSM: Allow per LSM  module per "struct task_struct" blob. Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> - 2017-04-11 06:50 +0200
          Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/3] LSM: Allow per LSM  module per "struct task_struct" blob. Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> - 2017-04-11 22:00 +0200
          Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/3] LSM: Allow per LSM  module per "struct task_struct" blob. Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> - 2017-04-11 22:00 +0200
            Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/3] LSM: Allow per LSM  module per "struct task_struct" blob. Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 18:10 +0200
          Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/3] LSM: Allow per LSM  module per "struct task_struct" blob. Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 18:30 +0200
            Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/3] LSM: Allow per LSM  module per "struct task_struct" blob. Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> - 2017-04-12 22:50 +0200

csiph-web