Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 13:32:59 -0700
From: Casey Schaufler <>
To: Igor Stoppa <>,
 Christoph Hellwig <>,
 Tetsuo Handa <>
 Greg KH <>,
 James Morris <>, Kees Cook <>,
 Paul Moore <>, Stephen Smalley <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] LSM: Make security_hook_heads a local variable.

On 5/22/2017 12:50 PM, Igor Stoppa wrote:
> On 22/05/17 18:09, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>> On 5/22/2017 7:03 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> [...]
>>> But even with those we can still chain
>>> them together with a list with external linkage.
>> I gave up that approach in 2012. Too many unnecessary calls to
>> null functions, and massive function vectors with a tiny number
>> of non-null entries. From a data structure standpoint, it was
>> just wrong. The list scheme is exactly right for the task at
>> hand.
> I understand this as a green light, for me to continue with the plan of
> using LSM Hooks as example for making dynamically allocated data become
> read-only, using also Tetsuo's patch (thanks, btw).

I still don't like the assumption that a structure of
N elements can be assumed to be the same as an array
of N elements. Putting on my hardening hat, however, I
like the smalloc() solution to keeping the hook lists
safe, so I am willing to swallow the objection to using
offsets to address the existing exposure.

> Is that correct?
> ---
> thanks, igor
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in
> the body of a message to
> More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.