Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 08:56:18 +1000 (AEST) From: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org> To: Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...wei.com> cc: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>, Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov> 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 <jmorris@...ei.org>
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.