Re: [PATCH v10 0/3] mm: security: ro protection for dynamic data
From: Igor Stoppa
Date: Tue Jul 11 2017 - 07:40:14 EST
On 11/07/17 14:12, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Igor Stoppa wrote:
>> - I had to rebase Tetsuo Handa's patch because it didn't apply cleanly
>> anymore, I would appreciate an ACK to that or a revised patch, whatever
>> comes easier.
> Since we are getting several proposals of changing LSM hooks and both your proposal
> and Casey's "LSM: Security module blob management" proposal touch same files, I think
> we can break these changes into small pieces so that both you and Casey can make
> future versions smaller.
> If nobody has objections about direction of Igor's proposal and Casey's proposal,
> I think merging only "[PATCH 2/3] LSM: Convert security_hook_heads into explicit
> array of struct list_head" from Igor's proposal and ->security accessor wrappers (e.g.
I would like to understand if there is still interest about:
* "[PATCH 1/3] Protectable memory support" which was my main interest
* "[PATCH 3/3] Make LSM Writable Hooks a command line option"
which was the example of how to use [1/3]
> #define selinux_security(obj) (obj->security)
> #define smack_security(obj) (obj->security)
> #define tomoyo_security(obj) (obj->security)
> #define apparmor_security(obj) (obj->security)
For example, I see that there are various kzalloc calls that might be
useful to turn into pmalloc ones.
In general, I'd think that, after a transient is complete, where modules
are loaded by allocating dynamic data structures, they could be locked
down in read-only mode.
I have the feeling that, now that I have polished up the pmalloc patch,
the proposed use case is fading away.
Can it be adjusted to the new situation or should I look elsewhere for
an example that would justify merging pmalloc?