From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:41891 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751633AbcAUV06 (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jan 2016 16:26:58 -0500 From: Paul Moore To: Mimi Zohar Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" , Casey Schaufler , John Johansen , Tetsuo Handa , linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-modules@vger.kernel.org, fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, David Howells , David Woodhouse , Kees Cook , Dmitry Torokhov , Dmitry Kasatkin Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 08/11] module: replace copy_module_from_fd with kernel version Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 16:26:56 -0500 Message-ID: <3085861.bPaQXnMeXx@sifl> In-Reply-To: <1453410902.9549.184.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <1453129886-20192-1-git-send-email-zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <5369666.tSqfcRVJfN@sifl> <1453410902.9549.184.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-linux-modules@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thursday, January 21, 2016 04:15:02 PM Mimi Zohar wrote: > On Thu, 2016-01-21 at 10:45 -0500, Paul Moore wrote: > > On Thursday, January 21, 2016 08:12:12 AM Mimi Zohar wrote: > > > Paul, Casey, Kees, Jon, Tetsuo does it make sense to consolidate the > > > module, firmware, and kexec pre and post security hooks and have just > > > one set of pre and post security kernel_read_file hook instead? Does > > > it make sense for this patch set to define the new hooks to allow the > > > LSMs to migrate to it independently of each other? > > > > Well, as usual, the easiest way to both get solid feedback and actually > > get a change accepted is to post patches to the affected LSMs. Probably > > not what you wanted to hear, but at least I'm honest :) > > Unless I'm misreading the code, it might be a lot simpler than I > thought. Of the three LSM hooks kernel_module_request, > kernel_module_from_file, and kernel_fw_from_file, the only upstreamed > LSM on any of these hooks is SELinux, which is only on the > kernel_module_request hook. > > After converting the SELinux kernel_module_request hook to use the new > kernel_read_file(), do I then remove the three hooks? Are we > concerned about "minor" LSMs that have not been upstreamed that might be > using these hooks? You can't worry about code that isn't upstream; if this change breaks something that hasn't been merged, then the burden lies on the out-of-tree developers to change their code. -- paul moore security @ redhat