Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753211AbdDKT6D (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Apr 2017 15:58:03 -0400 Received: from mail-io0-f176.google.com ([209.85.223.176]:35686 "EHLO mail-io0-f176.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752648AbdDKT6A (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Apr 2017 15:58:00 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <8551d1ff-2c6e-bf9b-5615-fbff089ef252@schaufler-ca.com> References: <1491734530-25002-1-git-send-email-tixxdz@gmail.com> <1491734530-25002-2-git-send-email-tixxdz@gmail.com> <2698e97b-397e-0fc0-84a1-dc9a4226117a@schaufler-ca.com> <8551d1ff-2c6e-bf9b-5615-fbff089ef252@schaufler-ca.com> From: Kees Cook Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 12:57:58 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: j7vcwRjkgvVpXf2uYwEUkpTPC5Y Message-ID: Subject: Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/3] LSM: Allow per LSM module per "struct task_struct" blob. To: Casey Schaufler Cc: Djalal Harouni , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Andy Lutomirski , Andrew Morton , "kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com" , LSM List , Linux API , Dongsu Park , James Morris , "Serge E. Hallyn" , Paul Moore , Tetsuo Handa , Greg Kroah-Hartman Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1225 Lines: 28 On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Casey Schaufler wrote: > On 4/10/2017 9:43 PM, Kees Cook wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 1:00 PM, Djalal Harouni wrote: >>> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 9:26 PM, Casey Schaufler 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