From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D69AC433E2 for ; Sat, 5 Sep 2020 13:25:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD5A020760 for ; Sat, 5 Sep 2020 13:25:28 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=paul-moore-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.i=@paul-moore-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.b="zuIDeADX" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728564AbgIENZ1 (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Sep 2020 09:25:27 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:45034 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728556AbgIENZ0 (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Sep 2020 09:25:26 -0400 Received: from mail-ej1-x644.google.com (mail-ej1-x644.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::644]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 590C8C061245 for ; Sat, 5 Sep 2020 06:25:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ej1-x644.google.com with SMTP id nw23so12132469ejb.4 for ; Sat, 05 Sep 2020 06:25:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=paul-moore-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ie9e005vGpeYxWm0WXYp4ZFqRLXamHsEroBYvkvSe6o=; b=zuIDeADXkz8tJwtl0SbURyUkAA3XlVMuaNLSYiCxAAekyiiFXzExEiylis3mEXv6k5 KgGSiONjkQlHp0C6s6LXAGTvDc/BX9dW9Nz9MMIoiLqpnwXw/5AXeSAiLinq7hp4DzYo s4dc6EGykUo1seb4WZCaU4gaKsTqXBOsnbEqGbskRUgLPrXwJtThKs51fO9ae/Lk3A5h PCImRLUjdxlJhIbNv4HWa8zrAUdDtiorojeVrMttvZS5g6nPfS4muEiCzQLvYFgQoGj9 vA+cmLHGkwK5lf3eiUEGR69eXTiVJWOfS5PKkx0flxSIZ6FYhupU6IdHFojFxLBleHa1 ygOg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ie9e005vGpeYxWm0WXYp4ZFqRLXamHsEroBYvkvSe6o=; b=aRQEHvoyBnqFGOd0Utf3OIyeegYdbjMi03sWxNH3ayTWaTdEq+ACcfuVg3Zit3wDLW IuwMB5UXAgccht7V9ZM8FRBe3rFfFNWrVUtkrZxgCBpkxvdmiSmiO6GC+sSBybILlnq4 y6Uim7U0DMHbSgmPlujhOgwi1O0u8oKl7CQOS+RIDTsroVpTwUDd39fubUi5VLuvV2Fb EBTAQaAAAA8LJvU5fQLQsxfA7dZM+yADhTB4qnYkKPlf8dPSyckRYogukgb1KIyD5WrC 2DGxAXMOIWBac/269O/U2L7D1DuiHmQU3jt5cpWqecuTV6li6dr4K+xin0UEmJrTZqit CgFA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530rT0KbUgnjoHN6tExwtyVo4J1wBshb7/cpxlpIrE92elOC67MZ NbdOodAdXmIzJo8UtJaJzyEttBEp0x0/vVx/nQet X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwCaOgYK/F9wk68UkyQKW1/SozAMRuWXaWQi2G9kZivtfrjsCtXnEpBDCt41ghL1Cqjg24uuP1iTYI81sdPCzQ= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:5205:: with SMTP id g5mr12119953ejm.488.1599312324669; Sat, 05 Sep 2020 06:25:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200826145247.10029-1-casey@schaufler-ca.com> <20200826145247.10029-6-casey@schaufler-ca.com> <1eeef766-405f-3800-c0cf-3eb008f9673e@schaufler-ca.com> In-Reply-To: From: Paul Moore Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2020 09:25:13 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v20 05/23] net: Prepare UDS for security module stacking To: Casey Schaufler Cc: casey.schaufler@intel.com, James Morris , linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, selinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-audit@redhat.com, keescook@chromium.org, john.johansen@canonical.com, penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp, Stephen Smalley Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: owner-linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 7:58 PM Casey Schaufler wrote: > > On 9/4/2020 2:53 PM, Paul Moore wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 5:35 PM Casey Schaufler wrote: > >> On 9/4/2020 1:08 PM, Paul Moore wrote: ... > > I understand the concerns you mention, they are all valid as far as > > I'm concerned, but I think we are going to get burned by this code as > > it currently stands. > > Yes, I can see that. We're getting burned by the non-extensibility > of secids. It will take someone smarter than me to figure out how to > fit N secids into 32bits without danger of either failure or memory > allocation. Sooo what are the next steps here? It sounds like there is some agreement that the currently proposed unix_skb_params approach is a problem, but it also sounds like you just want to merge it anyway? I was sorta hoping for something a bit better. -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com