From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from h2.hallyn.com ([78.46.35.8] helo=mail.hallyn.com) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.90_1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1fPvDR-0001BD-P7 for kexec@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 04 Jun 2018 19:32:32 +0000 Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2018 14:32:15 -0500 From: "Serge E. Hallyn" Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/8] kexec/firmware: support system wide policy requiring signatures Message-ID: <20180604193215.GA13553@mail.hallyn.com> References: <1527616920-5415-1-git-send-email-zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1528121025.3237.116.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1528121025.3237.116.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: "kexec" Errors-To: kexec-bounces+dwmw2=infradead.org@lists.infradead.org To: Mimi Zohar Cc: Andres Rodriguez , Eric Biederman , Kees Cook , Ard Biesheuvel , Greg Kroah-Hartman , kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Howells , Paul Moore , linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, "Luis R . Rodriguez" , James Morris , Jessica Yu , Casey Schaufler , linux-integrity , "Serge E. Hallyn" Quoting Mimi Zohar (zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com): > On Tue, 2018-05-29 at 14:01 -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > Instead of adding the security_kernel_read_file LSM hook - or defining a > > wrapper for security_kernel_read_file LSM hook and adding it, or > > renaming the existing hook to security_kernel_read_data() and adding it > > - in places where the kernel isn't reading a file, this version of the > > patch set defines a new LSM hook named security_kernel_load_data(). > > = > > The new LSM hook does not replace the existing security_kernel_read_file > > LSM hook, which is still needed, but defines a new LSM hook allowing > > LSMs and IMA-appraisal the opportunity to fail loading userspace > > provided file/data. > > = > > The only difference between the two LSM hooks is the LSM hook name and a > > file descriptor. Whether this is cause enough for requiring a new LSM > > hook, is left to the security community. > = > Paul does not have a preference as to adding a new LSM hook or calling > the existing hook. =A0Either way is fine, as long as both the new and > existing hooks call the existing function. > = > Casey didn't like the idea of a wrapper. > James suggested renaming the LSM hook. > = > The maintainers for the callers of the LSM hook prefer a meaningful > LSM hook name. =A0The "null" argument is not as much of a concern. =A0Only > Eric seems to be asking for a separate, new LSM hook, without the > "null" argument. > = > Unless someone really objects, to accommodate Eric we'll define a new > LSM hook named security_kernel_load_data. =A0Eric, are you planning on I'm confused - isn't that what this patchset did? :) > Ack'ing patches 1 & 2? > = > Mimi _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec