From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1jYtwx-0000Fp-3a for kexec@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 13 May 2020 16:09:40 +0000 Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 18:09:36 +0200 From: Greg KH Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] security: add symbol namespace for reading file data Message-ID: <20200513160936.GC1362525@kroah.com> References: <20200513152108.25669-1-mcgrof@kernel.org> <20200513152108.25669-3-mcgrof@kernel.org> <87k11fonbk.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87k11fonbk.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "kexec" Errors-To: kexec-bounces+dwmw2=infradead.org@lists.infradead.org To: "Eric W. Biederman" Cc: rafael@kernel.org, zohar@linux.ibm.com, dhowells@redhat.com, Luis Chamberlain , paul@paul-moore.com, nayna@linux.ibm.com, jmorris@namei.org, geert@linux-m68k.org, dan.carpenter@oracle.com, keescook@chromium.org, scott.branden@broadcom.com, selinux@vger.kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, skhan@linuxfoundation.org, eparis@parisplace.org, tglx@linutronix.de, stephen.smalley.work@gmail.com, kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, jeyu@kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, bauerman@linux.ibm.com On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 10:40:31AM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Luis Chamberlain writes: > > > Certain symbols are not meant to be used by everybody, the security > > helpers for reading files directly is one such case. Use a symbol > > namespace for them. > > > > This will prevent abuse of use of these symbols in places they were > > not inteded to be used, and provides an easy way to audit where these > > types of operations happen as a whole. > > Why not just remove the ability for the firmware loader to be a module? I agree, it's been a mess of build options to try to keep alive over time. > Is there some important use case that requires the firmware loader > to be a module? I don't think so anymore. > We already compile the code in by default. So it is probably just > easier to remove the modular support all together. Which would allow > the export of the security hooks to be removed as well. Agreed. thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec