Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Message-ID: <721b4f8d38b014babb0f4ae829d76014bbf7734e.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] integrity: double check iint_cache was
 initialized
From:   Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
To:     Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
Cc:     linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
        "Serge E . Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
        linux-security-module <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 23 Mar 2021 12:13:22 -0400
In-Reply-To: <cc01e7b7-d685-289c-a792-fc76fabba807@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
References: <20210319200358.22816-1-zohar@linux.ibm.com>
         <20210319200358.22816-2-zohar@linux.ibm.com>
         <8450c80a-104a-3f36-0963-0ae8fa69e0f2@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
         <CACT4Y+bvakfNhVs29QvbY6Z8Pw0zmAUKGWM-DD5DcPZW5ny90A@mail.gmail.com>
         <1a2245c6-3cab-7085-83d3-55b083619303@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
         <8039976be3df9bd07374fe4f1931b8ce28b89dab.camel@linux.ibm.com>
         <cde00350-2a18-1759-d53b-2e7489b6cc0e@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
         <8a8763a7-eeeb-3578-d50c-c15919fbe1f9@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
         <3ed2004413e0ac07c7bd6f10294d6b6fac6fdbf3.camel@linux.ibm.com>
         <cc01e7b7-d685-289c-a792-fc76fabba807@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 2021-03-24 at 00:14 +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2021/03/23 23:47, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > Initially I also questioned making "integrity" an LSM.  Perhaps it's
> > time to reconsider.   For now, it makes sense to just fix the NULL
> > pointer dereferencing.
> 
> Do we think calling panic() as "fix the NULL pointer dereferencing" ?

Not supplying "integrity" as an "lsm=" option is a user error.  There
are only two options - allow or deny the caller to proceed.   If the
user is expecting the integrity subsystem to be properly working,
returning a NULL and allowing the system to boot (RFC patch version)
does not make sense.   Better to fail early.

Mimi