linux-security-module.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jeff Xu <jeffxu@google.com>
To: "Mickaël Salaün" <mic@digikod.net>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
	 Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	 Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>,
	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
	 Alejandro Colomar <alx.manpages@gmail.com>,
	Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@cyphar.com>,
	 Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,  Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
	 Christian Heimes <christian@python.org>,
	Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
	 Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>,
	Eric Chiang <ericchiang@google.com>,
	 Fan Wu <wufan@linux.microsoft.com>,
	Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>,
	 Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
	James Morris <jamorris@linux.microsoft.com>,
	 Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
	 Jordan R Abrahams <ajordanr@google.com>,
	Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@linux.microsoft.com>,
	 Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org>,
	Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
	 "Madhavan T . Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>,
	Matt Bobrowski <mattbobrowski@google.com>,
	 Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>,
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
	 Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com>,
	Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>,
	 Nicolas Bouchinet <nicolas.bouchinet@ssi.gouv.fr>,
	Scott Shell <scottsh@microsoft.com>,
	 Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
	 Steve Dower <steve.dower@python.org>,
	Steve Grubb <sgrubb@redhat.com>,
	 Thibaut Sautereau <thibaut.sautereau@ssi.gouv.fr>,
	 Vincent Strubel <vincent.strubel@ssi.gouv.fr>,
	Xiaoming Ni <nixiaoming@huawei.com>,
	 Yin Fengwei <fengwei.yin@intel.com>,
	kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com,  linux-api@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,  linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	 linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v19 2/5] security: Add new SHOULD_EXEC_CHECK and SHOULD_EXEC_RESTRICT securebits
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2024 10:53:11 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CALmYWFsLUhkU5u1NKH8XWvSxbFKFOEq+A_eqLeDsN29xOEAYgg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALmYWFscz5W6xSXD-+dimzbj=TykNJEDa0m5gvBx93N-J+3nKA@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 9:17 AM Jeff Xu <jeffxu@google.com> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 12:02 PM Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> wrote:
> >
> > These new SECBIT_SHOULD_EXEC_CHECK, SECBIT_SHOULD_EXEC_RESTRICT, and
> > their *_LOCKED counterparts are designed to be set by processes setting
> > up an execution environment, such as a user session, a container, or a
> > security sandbox.  Like seccomp filters or Landlock domains, the
> > securebits are inherited across proceses.
> >
> > When SECBIT_SHOULD_EXEC_CHECK is set, programs interpreting code should
> > check executable resources with execveat(2) + AT_CHECK (see previous
> > patch).
> >
> > When SECBIT_SHOULD_EXEC_RESTRICT is set, a process should only allow
> > execution of approved resources, if any (see SECBIT_SHOULD_EXEC_CHECK).
> >
> Do we need both bits ?
> When CHECK is set and RESTRICT is not, the "check fail" executable
> will still get executed, so CHECK is for logging ?
> Does RESTRICT imply CHECK is set, e.g. What if CHECK=0 and RESTRICT = 1 ?
>
The intention might be "permissive mode"?  if so, consider reuse
existing selinux's concept, and still with 2 bits:
SECBIT_SHOULD_EXEC_RESTRICT
SECBIT_SHOULD_EXEC_RESTRICT_PERMISSIVE


-Jeff




> > For a secure environment, we might also want
> > SECBIT_SHOULD_EXEC_CHECK_LOCKED and SECBIT_SHOULD_EXEC_RESTRICT_LOCKED
> > to be set.  For a test environment (e.g. testing on a fleet to identify
> > potential issues), only the SECBIT_SHOULD_EXEC_CHECK* bits can be set to
> > still be able to identify potential issues (e.g. with interpreters logs
> > or LSMs audit entries).
> >
> > It should be noted that unlike other security bits, the
> > SECBIT_SHOULD_EXEC_CHECK and SECBIT_SHOULD_EXEC_RESTRICT bits are
> > dedicated to user space willing to restrict itself.  Because of that,
> > they only make sense in the context of a trusted environment (e.g.
> > sandbox, container, user session, full system) where the process
> > changing its behavior (according to these bits) and all its parent
> > processes are trusted.  Otherwise, any parent process could just execute
> > its own malicious code (interpreting a script or not), or even enforce a
> > seccomp filter to mask these bits.
> >
> > Such a secure environment can be achieved with an appropriate access
> > control policy (e.g. mount's noexec option, file access rights, LSM
> > configuration) and an enlighten ld.so checking that libraries are
> > allowed for execution e.g., to protect against illegitimate use of
> > LD_PRELOAD.
> >
> > Scripts may need some changes to deal with untrusted data (e.g. stdin,
> > environment variables), but that is outside the scope of the kernel.
> >
> > The only restriction enforced by the kernel is the right to ptrace
> > another process.  Processes are denied to ptrace less restricted ones,
> > unless the tracer has CAP_SYS_PTRACE.  This is mainly a safeguard to
> > avoid trivial privilege escalations e.g., by a debugging process being
> > abused with a confused deputy attack.
> >
> > Cc: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
> > Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
> > Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> > Cc: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net>
> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240704190137.696169-3-mic@digikod.net
> > ---
> >
> > New design since v18:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220104155024.48023-3-mic@digikod.net
> > ---
> >  include/uapi/linux/securebits.h | 56 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >  security/commoncap.c            | 63 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> >  2 files changed, 110 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/securebits.h b/include/uapi/linux/securebits.h
> > index d6d98877ff1a..3fdb0382718b 100644
> > --- a/include/uapi/linux/securebits.h
> > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/securebits.h
> > @@ -52,10 +52,64 @@
> >  #define SECBIT_NO_CAP_AMBIENT_RAISE_LOCKED \
> >                         (issecure_mask(SECURE_NO_CAP_AMBIENT_RAISE_LOCKED))
> >
> > +/*
> > + * When SECBIT_SHOULD_EXEC_CHECK is set, a process should check all executable
> > + * files with execveat(2) + AT_CHECK.  However, such check should only be
> > + * performed if all to-be-executed code only comes from regular files.  For
> > + * instance, if a script interpreter is called with both a script snipped as
> > + * argument and a regular file, the interpreter should not check any file.
> > + * Doing otherwise would mislead the kernel to think that only the script file
> > + * is being executed, which could for instance lead to unexpected permission
> > + * change and break current use cases.
> > + *
> > + * This secure bit may be set by user session managers, service managers,
> > + * container runtimes, sandboxer tools...  Except for test environments, the
> > + * related SECBIT_SHOULD_EXEC_CHECK_LOCKED bit should also be set.
> > + *
> > + * Ptracing another process is deny if the tracer has SECBIT_SHOULD_EXEC_CHECK
> > + * but not the tracee.  SECBIT_SHOULD_EXEC_CHECK_LOCKED also checked.
> > + */
> > +#define SECURE_SHOULD_EXEC_CHECK               8
> > +#define SECURE_SHOULD_EXEC_CHECK_LOCKED                9  /* make bit-8 immutable */
> > +
> > +#define SECBIT_SHOULD_EXEC_CHECK (issecure_mask(SECURE_SHOULD_EXEC_CHECK))
> > +#define SECBIT_SHOULD_EXEC_CHECK_LOCKED \
> > +                       (issecure_mask(SECURE_SHOULD_EXEC_CHECK_LOCKED))
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * When SECBIT_SHOULD_EXEC_RESTRICT is set, a process should only allow
> > + * execution of approved files, if any (see SECBIT_SHOULD_EXEC_CHECK).  For
> > + * instance, script interpreters called with a script snippet as argument
> > + * should always deny such execution if SECBIT_SHOULD_EXEC_RESTRICT is set.
> > + * However, if a script interpreter is called with both
> > + * SECBIT_SHOULD_EXEC_CHECK and SECBIT_SHOULD_EXEC_RESTRICT, they should
> > + * interpret the provided script files if no unchecked code is also provided
> > + * (e.g. directly as argument).
> > + *
> > + * This secure bit may be set by user session managers, service managers,
> > + * container runtimes, sandboxer tools...  Except for test environments, the
> > + * related SECBIT_SHOULD_EXEC_RESTRICT_LOCKED bit should also be set.
> > + *
> > + * Ptracing another process is deny if the tracer has
> > + * SECBIT_SHOULD_EXEC_RESTRICT but not the tracee.
> > + * SECBIT_SHOULD_EXEC_RESTRICT_LOCKED is also checked.
> > + */
> > +#define SECURE_SHOULD_EXEC_RESTRICT            10
> > +#define SECURE_SHOULD_EXEC_RESTRICT_LOCKED     11  /* make bit-8 immutable */
> > +
> > +#define SECBIT_SHOULD_EXEC_RESTRICT (issecure_mask(SECURE_SHOULD_EXEC_RESTRICT))
> > +#define SECBIT_SHOULD_EXEC_RESTRICT_LOCKED \
> > +                       (issecure_mask(SECURE_SHOULD_EXEC_RESTRICT_LOCKED))
> > +
> >  #define SECURE_ALL_BITS                (issecure_mask(SECURE_NOROOT) | \
> >                                  issecure_mask(SECURE_NO_SETUID_FIXUP) | \
> >                                  issecure_mask(SECURE_KEEP_CAPS) | \
> > -                                issecure_mask(SECURE_NO_CAP_AMBIENT_RAISE))
> > +                                issecure_mask(SECURE_NO_CAP_AMBIENT_RAISE) | \
> > +                                issecure_mask(SECURE_SHOULD_EXEC_CHECK) | \
> > +                                issecure_mask(SECURE_SHOULD_EXEC_RESTRICT))
> >  #define SECURE_ALL_LOCKS       (SECURE_ALL_BITS << 1)
> >
> > +#define SECURE_ALL_UNPRIVILEGED (issecure_mask(SECURE_SHOULD_EXEC_CHECK) | \
> > +                                issecure_mask(SECURE_SHOULD_EXEC_RESTRICT))
> > +
> >  #endif /* _UAPI_LINUX_SECUREBITS_H */
> > diff --git a/security/commoncap.c b/security/commoncap.c
> > index 162d96b3a676..34b4493e2a69 100644
> > --- a/security/commoncap.c
> > +++ b/security/commoncap.c
> > @@ -117,6 +117,33 @@ int cap_settime(const struct timespec64 *ts, const struct timezone *tz)
> >         return 0;
> >  }
> >
> > +static bool ptrace_secbits_allowed(const struct cred *tracer,
> > +                                  const struct cred *tracee)
> > +{
> > +       const unsigned long tracer_secbits = SECURE_ALL_UNPRIVILEGED &
> > +                                            tracer->securebits;
> > +       const unsigned long tracee_secbits = SECURE_ALL_UNPRIVILEGED &
> > +                                            tracee->securebits;
> > +       /* Ignores locking of unset secure bits (cf. SECURE_ALL_LOCKS). */
> > +       const unsigned long tracer_locked = (tracer_secbits << 1) &
> > +                                           tracer->securebits;
> > +       const unsigned long tracee_locked = (tracee_secbits << 1) &
> > +                                           tracee->securebits;
> > +
> > +       /* The tracee must not have less constraints than the tracer. */
> > +       if ((tracer_secbits | tracee_secbits) != tracee_secbits)
> > +               return false;
> > +
> > +       /*
> > +        * Makes sure that the tracer's locks for restrictions are the same for
> > +        * the tracee.
> > +        */
> > +       if ((tracer_locked | tracee_locked) != tracee_locked)
> > +               return false;
> > +
> > +       return true;
> > +}
> > +
> >  /**
> >   * cap_ptrace_access_check - Determine whether the current process may access
> >   *                        another
> > @@ -146,7 +173,8 @@ int cap_ptrace_access_check(struct task_struct *child, unsigned int mode)
> >         else
> >                 caller_caps = &cred->cap_permitted;
> >         if (cred->user_ns == child_cred->user_ns &&
> > -           cap_issubset(child_cred->cap_permitted, *caller_caps))
> > +           cap_issubset(child_cred->cap_permitted, *caller_caps) &&
> > +           ptrace_secbits_allowed(cred, child_cred))
> >                 goto out;
> >         if (ns_capable(child_cred->user_ns, CAP_SYS_PTRACE))
> >                 goto out;
> > @@ -178,7 +206,8 @@ int cap_ptrace_traceme(struct task_struct *parent)
> >         cred = __task_cred(parent);
> >         child_cred = current_cred();
> >         if (cred->user_ns == child_cred->user_ns &&
> > -           cap_issubset(child_cred->cap_permitted, cred->cap_permitted))
> > +           cap_issubset(child_cred->cap_permitted, cred->cap_permitted) &&
> > +           ptrace_secbits_allowed(cred, child_cred))
> >                 goto out;
> >         if (has_ns_capability(parent, child_cred->user_ns, CAP_SYS_PTRACE))
> >                 goto out;
> > @@ -1302,21 +1331,39 @@ int cap_task_prctl(int option, unsigned long arg2, unsigned long arg3,
> >                      & (old->securebits ^ arg2))                        /*[1]*/
> >                     || ((old->securebits & SECURE_ALL_LOCKS & ~arg2))   /*[2]*/
> >                     || (arg2 & ~(SECURE_ALL_LOCKS | SECURE_ALL_BITS))   /*[3]*/
> > -                   || (cap_capable(current_cred(),
> > -                                   current_cred()->user_ns,
> > -                                   CAP_SETPCAP,
> > -                                   CAP_OPT_NONE) != 0)                 /*[4]*/
> >                         /*
> >                          * [1] no changing of bits that are locked
> >                          * [2] no unlocking of locks
> >                          * [3] no setting of unsupported bits
> > -                        * [4] doing anything requires privilege (go read about
> > -                        *     the "sendmail capabilities bug")
> >                          */
> >                     )
> >                         /* cannot change a locked bit */
> >                         return -EPERM;
> >
> > +               /*
> > +                * Doing anything requires privilege (go read about the
> > +                * "sendmail capabilities bug"), except for unprivileged bits.
> > +                * Indeed, the SECURE_ALL_UNPRIVILEGED bits are not
> > +                * restrictions enforced by the kernel but by user space on
> > +                * itself.  The kernel is only in charge of protecting against
> > +                * privilege escalation with ptrace protections.
> > +                */
> > +               if (cap_capable(current_cred(), current_cred()->user_ns,
> > +                               CAP_SETPCAP, CAP_OPT_NONE) != 0) {
> > +                       const unsigned long unpriv_and_locks =
> > +                               SECURE_ALL_UNPRIVILEGED |
> > +                               SECURE_ALL_UNPRIVILEGED << 1;
> > +                       const unsigned long changed = old->securebits ^ arg2;
> > +
> > +                       /* For legacy reason, denies non-change. */
> > +                       if (!changed)
> > +                               return -EPERM;
> > +
> > +                       /* Denies privileged changes. */
> > +                       if (changed & ~unpriv_and_locks)
> > +                               return -EPERM;
> > +               }
> > +
> >                 new = prepare_creds();
> >                 if (!new)
> >                         return -ENOMEM;
> > --
> > 2.45.2
> >

  reply	other threads:[~2024-07-08 17:53 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 102+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-07-04 19:01 [RFC PATCH v19 0/5] Script execution control (was O_MAYEXEC) Mickaël Salaün
2024-07-04 19:01 ` [RFC PATCH v19 1/5] exec: Add a new AT_CHECK flag to execveat(2) Mickaël Salaün
2024-07-05  0:04   ` Kees Cook
2024-07-05 17:53     ` Mickaël Salaün
2024-07-08 19:38       ` Kees Cook
2024-07-05 18:03   ` Florian Weimer
2024-07-06 14:55     ` Mickaël Salaün
2024-07-06 15:32       ` Florian Weimer
2024-07-08  8:56         ` Mickaël Salaün
2024-07-08 16:37           ` [PATCH] binfmt_elf: Fail execution of shared objects with ELIBEXEC (was: Re: [RFC PATCH v19 1/5] exec: Add a new AT_CHECK flag to execveat(2)) Florian Weimer
2024-07-08 17:34             ` [PATCH] binfmt_elf: Fail execution of shared objects with ELIBEXEC Eric W. Biederman
2024-07-08 17:59               ` Florian Weimer
2024-07-10 10:05             ` [PATCH] binfmt_elf: Fail execution of shared objects with ELIBEXEC (was: Re: [RFC PATCH v19 1/5] exec: Add a new AT_CHECK flag to execveat(2)) Mickaël Salaün
2024-07-08 16:08     ` [RFC PATCH v19 1/5] exec: Add a new AT_CHECK flag to execveat(2) Jeff Xu
2024-07-08 16:25       ` Florian Weimer
2024-07-08 16:40         ` Jeff Xu
2024-07-08 17:05           ` Mickaël Salaün
2024-07-08 17:33           ` Florian Weimer
2024-07-08 17:52             ` Jeff Xu
2024-07-09  9:18               ` Mickaël Salaün
2024-07-09 10:05                 ` Florian Weimer
2024-07-09 20:42                   ` Mickaël Salaün
2024-07-09 18:57                 ` Jeff Xu
2024-07-09 20:41                   ` Mickaël Salaün
2024-07-06  8:52   ` Andy Lutomirski
2024-07-07  9:01     ` Mickaël Salaün
2024-07-17  6:33   ` Jeff Xu
2024-07-17  8:26     ` Steve Dower
2024-07-17 10:00       ` Mickaël Salaün
2024-07-18  1:02         ` Andy Lutomirski
2024-07-18 12:22           ` Mickaël Salaün
2024-07-20  1:59             ` Andy Lutomirski
2024-07-20 11:43               ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2024-07-23 13:16                 ` Mickaël Salaün
2024-07-23 13:16               ` Mickaël Salaün
2024-07-18  1:51         ` Jeff Xu
2024-07-18 12:23           ` Mickaël Salaün
2024-07-18 22:54             ` Jeff Xu
2024-07-17 10:01     ` Mickaël Salaün
2024-07-18  2:08       ` Jeff Xu
2024-07-18 12:24         ` Mickaël Salaün
2024-07-18 13:03           ` James Bottomley
2024-07-18 15:35             ` Mickaël Salaün
2024-07-19  1:29           ` Jeff Xu
2024-07-19  8:44             ` Mickaël Salaün
2024-07-19 14:16               ` Jeff Xu
2024-07-19 15:04                 ` Mickaël Salaün
2024-07-19 15:27                   ` Jeff Xu
2024-07-23 13:15                     ` Mickaël Salaün
2024-08-05 18:35                       ` Jeff Xu
2024-08-09  8:45                         ` Mickaël Salaün
2024-08-09 16:15                           ` Jeff Xu
2024-07-19 15:12           ` Jeff Xu
2024-07-19 15:31             ` Mickaël Salaün
2024-07-19 17:36               ` Jeff Xu
2024-07-23 13:15                 ` Mickaël Salaün
2024-07-18 14:46         ` enh
2024-07-18 15:35           ` Mickaël Salaün
2024-07-04 19:01 ` [RFC PATCH v19 2/5] security: Add new SHOULD_EXEC_CHECK and SHOULD_EXEC_RESTRICT securebits Mickaël Salaün
2024-07-05  0:18   ` Kees Cook
2024-07-05 17:54     ` Mickaël Salaün
2024-07-05 21:44       ` Kees Cook
2024-07-05 22:22         ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2024-07-06 14:56           ` Mickaël Salaün
2024-07-06 17:28             ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2024-07-06 14:56         ` Mickaël Salaün
2024-07-18 14:16           ` Roberto Sassu
2024-07-18 16:20             ` Mickaël Salaün
2024-07-08 16:17   ` Jeff Xu
2024-07-08 17:53     ` Jeff Xu [this message]
2024-07-08 18:48       ` Mickaël Salaün
2024-07-08 21:15         ` Jeff Xu
2024-07-08 21:25           ` Steve Dower
2024-07-08 22:07             ` Jeff Xu
2024-07-09 20:42               ` Mickaël Salaün
2024-07-09 21:57                 ` Jeff Xu
2024-07-10  9:58                   ` Mickaël Salaün
2024-07-10 16:26                     ` Kees Cook
2024-07-11  8:57                       ` Mickaël Salaün
2024-07-16 15:02                         ` Jeff Xu
2024-07-16 15:10                           ` Steve Dower
2024-07-16 15:15                           ` Mickaël Salaün
2024-07-16 15:18                             ` Jeff Xu
2024-07-10 16:32                     ` Steve Dower
2024-07-20  2:06   ` Andy Lutomirski
2024-07-23 13:15     ` Mickaël Salaün
2024-07-04 19:01 ` [RFC PATCH v19 3/5] selftests/exec: Add tests for AT_CHECK and related securebits Mickaël Salaün
2024-07-04 19:01 ` [RFC PATCH v19 4/5] selftests/landlock: Add tests for execveat + AT_CHECK Mickaël Salaün
2024-07-04 19:01 ` [RFC PATCH v19 5/5] samples/should-exec: Add set-should-exec Mickaël Salaün
2024-07-08 19:40   ` Mimi Zohar
2024-07-09 20:42     ` Mickaël Salaün
2024-07-08 20:35 ` [RFC PATCH v19 0/5] Script execution control (was O_MAYEXEC) Mimi Zohar
2024-07-09 20:43   ` Mickaël Salaün
2024-07-16 15:57     ` Roberto Sassu
2024-07-16 16:12       ` James Bottomley
2024-07-16 17:31         ` Mickaël Salaün
2024-07-18 16:21           ` Mickaël Salaün
     [not found]         ` <E608EDB8-72E8-4791-AC9B-8FF9AC753FBE@sempervictus.com>
2024-07-16 17:47           ` Mickaël Salaün
2024-07-17 17:59             ` Boris Lukashev
2024-07-18 13:00               ` Mickaël Salaün
2024-07-15 20:16 ` Jonathan Corbet
2024-07-16  7:13   ` Mickaël Salaün

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=CALmYWFsLUhkU5u1NKH8XWvSxbFKFOEq+A_eqLeDsN29xOEAYgg@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=jeffxu@google.com \
    --cc=ajordanr@google.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=alx.manpages@gmail.com \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=bluca@debian.org \
    --cc=brauner@kernel.org \
    --cc=casey@schaufler-ca.com \
    --cc=christian@python.org \
    --cc=corbet@lwn.net \
    --cc=cyphar@cyphar.com \
    --cc=dvyukov@google.com \
    --cc=ebiggers@kernel.org \
    --cc=ericchiang@google.com \
    --cc=fengwei.yin@intel.com \
    --cc=fweimer@redhat.com \
    --cc=geert@linux-m68k.org \
    --cc=jack@suse.cz \
    --cc=jamorris@linux.microsoft.com \
    --cc=jannh@google.com \
    --cc=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com \
    --cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=luto@kernel.org \
    --cc=madvenka@linux.microsoft.com \
    --cc=mattbobrowski@google.com \
    --cc=mcgrof@kernel.org \
    --cc=mic@digikod.net \
    --cc=mjg59@srcf.ucam.org \
    --cc=mszeredi@redhat.com \
    --cc=nicolas.bouchinet@ssi.gouv.fr \
    --cc=nixiaoming@huawei.com \
    --cc=nramas@linux.microsoft.com \
    --cc=paul@paul-moore.com \
    --cc=scottsh@microsoft.com \
    --cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
    --cc=sgrubb@redhat.com \
    --cc=shuah@kernel.org \
    --cc=steve.dower@python.org \
    --cc=thibaut.sautereau@ssi.gouv.fr \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=tytso@mit.edu \
    --cc=vincent.strubel@ssi.gouv.fr \
    --cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=willy@infradead.org \
    --cc=wufan@linux.microsoft.com \
    --cc=zohar@linux.ibm.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).