Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <612c169c-2e11-13cf-9742-19714a247152@schaufler-ca.com>
Date:   Fri, 28 Oct 2022 09:54:59 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.4.1
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/8] LSM: Add an LSM identifier for external use
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc:     casey.schaufler@intel.com, paul@paul-moore.com,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, jmorris@namei.org,
        keescook@chromium.org, john.johansen@canonical.com,
        penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp, stephen.smalley.work@gmail.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org,
        mic@digikod.net, casey@schaufler-ca.com
References: <20221025184519.13231-1-casey@schaufler-ca.com>
 <20221025184519.13231-3-casey@schaufler-ca.com> <Y1jMeWl0oV4/2zyE@kroah.com>
 <5396ab1e-9b93-df33-ca49-58dc59459a76@schaufler-ca.com>
 <Y1olsHWnaEk6+b1L@kroah.com>
From:   Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
In-Reply-To: <Y1olsHWnaEk6+b1L@kroah.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 10/26/2022 11:31 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 12:36:34PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>>>> + *
>>>> + * Copyright (C) 2022 Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
>>>> + * Copyright (C) Intel Corporation
>>> No date for Intel?
>> The latest guidance I have received is that Intel does not want a date.
> Ok, then I need to have an Intel lawyer sign off on a patch that does
> this in order to have that be their official statement.  Otherwise, it
> needs a date.

Seems I misunderstood something. The date will be there.

>>>> + */
>>>> +
>>>> +#ifndef _UAPI_LINUX_LSM_H
>>>> +#define _UAPI_LINUX_LSM_H
>>>> +
>>>> +/*
>>>> + * ID values to identify security modules.
>>>> + * A system may use more than one security module.
>>>> + *
>>>> + * LSM_ID_XXX values 0 - 31 are reserved for future use
>>> Reserved for what?  Why?
>> You're not the first person to ask.
> And the answer is?

There hasn't been an argument for it beyond "just in case".
I can't see a rational reason to reserve specific numbers as
I don't see value in LSM ranges.

>> I'll remove the reserved values for the next version.
> Because we asked it will be removed?

Because I don't have a good reason for including it and it
has been called into question. If a reviewer has a legitimate
case for reserved values they may be back.

> confused,
>
> greg k-h