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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230531110506.142951-1-gongruiqi@huaweicloud.com> <fe6a0f1e-6378-a4f2-f995-46799ed5248e@schaufler-ca.com>
In-Reply-To: <fe6a0f1e-6378-a4f2-f995-46799ed5248e@schaufler-ca.com>
From:   Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Date:   Wed, 31 May 2023 17:10:51 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhQHUKXLejiMvETYE_PJz3cyHPF5z+T1ifUCD9ezMztcSQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] LSM: Infrastructure management of the sock
To:     Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
Cc:     "GONG, Ruiqi" <gongruiqi@huaweicloud.com>,
        John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com>,
        James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
        "Serge E . Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
        Stephen Smalley <stephen.smalley.work@gmail.com>,
        Eric Paris <eparis@parisplace.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, apparmor@lists.ubuntu.com,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, selinux@vger.kernel.org,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Wang Weiyang <wangweiyang2@huawei.com>,
        Xiu Jianfeng <xiujianfeng@huawei.com>, gongruiqi1@huawei.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 10:00=E2=80=AFAM Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-c=
a.com> wrote:
> On 5/31/2023 4:05 AM, GONG, Ruiqi wrote:
> > As the security infrastructure has taken over the management of multipl=
e
> > *_security blobs that are accessed by multiple security modules, and
> > sk->sk_security shares the same situation, move its management out of
> > individual security modules and into the security infrastructure as
> > well. The infrastructure does the memory allocation, and each relavant
> > module uses its own share.
>
> Do you have a reason to make this change? The LSM infrastructure
> manages other security blobs to enable multiple concurrently active
> LSMs to use the blob. If only one LSM on a system can use the
> socket blob there's no reason to move the management.

I think an argument could be made for consistent handling of security
blobs, but with the LSM stacking work in development the argument for
merging this patch needs to be a lot stronger than just "consistency".

--=20
paul-moore.com