Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 08:56:18 +1000 (AEST)
From: James Morris <>
To: Igor Stoppa <>
cc: Tetsuo Handa <>,,,,
        Casey Schaufler <>,
        Christoph Hellwig <>,
        James Morris <>,
        Kees Cook <>, Paul Moore <>,
        Stephen Smalley <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] LSM: Convert security_hook_heads into explicit array
 of struct list_head

On Wed, 31 May 2017, Igor Stoppa wrote:

> On 30/05/17 13:32, James Morris wrote:
> > This seems like pointless churn in security-critical code in anticipation 
> > of features which are still in development and may not be adopted.
> > 
> > Is there a compelling reason to merge this now? (And I don't mean worrying 
> > about non-existent compliers).
> I propose to take this patch as part of those I will be submitting.
> It took me some unplanned time to add support for hardened user copy,
> but now it's done - at least to a point that I can test it without failures.
> So I'm back on track to provide an example of the smalloc api and I can
> also use Tetsuo's work (thanks again, btw).
> This patch would be sandwiched between the smalloc ones and the LSM rework.
> It can get merged when the rest (hopefully) is merged.
> But I have a more prosaic question: since smalloc is affecting the
> memory subsystem, can it still be merged through the security tree?

It needs acks from the maintainers of the affected subsystems.

James Morris

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.