Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751502AbdFFLNx (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Jun 2017 07:13:53 -0400 Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com ([194.213.3.17]:28080 "EHLO lhrrgout.huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751305AbdFFLNw (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Jun 2017 07:13:52 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] Make LSM Writable Hooks a command line option To: Tetsuo Handa , , , , CC: , , , , , , References: <20170605192216.21596-1-igor.stoppa@huawei.com> <20170605192216.21596-5-igor.stoppa@huawei.com> <71e91de0-7d91-79f4-67f0-be0afb33583c@schaufler-ca.com> <201706060550.HAC69712.OVFOtSFLQJOMFH@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <201706061954.GBH56755.QSOOFMFLtJFVOH@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> From: Igor Stoppa Message-ID: <6c807793-6a39-82ef-93d9-29ad2546fc4c@huawei.com> Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 14:12:26 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <201706061954.GBH56755.QSOOFMFLtJFVOH@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.122.225.51] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020204.59368E62.0229,ss=1,re=0.000,recu=0.000,reip=0.000,cl=1,cld=1,fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32 X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: e048bc0892a6220071d75ebe898d630d Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 862 Lines: 28 On 06/06/17 13:54, Tetsuo Handa wrote: [...] > "Loading modules which are not compiled as built-in" is correct. > My use case is to allow users to use LSM modules as loadable kernel > modules which distributors do not compile as built-in. Ok, so I suppose someone should eventually lock down the header, after the additional modules are loaded. Who decides when enough is enough, meaning that all the needed modules are loaded? Should I provide an interface to user-space? A sysfs entry? [...] > Unloading LSM modules is dangerous. Only SELinux allows unloading > at the risk of triggering an oops. If we insert delay while removing > list elements, we can easily observe oops due to free function being > called without corresponding allocation function. Ok. But even in this case, the sys proposal would still work. It would just stay unused. -- igor