Re: [PATCH v15 01/11] LSM: Identify modules by more than name

[Casey Schaufler]

On 9/15/2023 11:32 PM, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2023/09/16 2:53, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>> I *could* respond with:
>>
>> -#define LSM_ID_TOMOYO	103
>>
>> but I won't. I won't make a difference because TOMOYO doesn't present
>> any attributes. I understand your objections, but don't believe that
>> they can't be worked around. The argument that a LSM ID will prevent
>> new LSM development is rebuffed by the exact same situation with system
>> calls, PRCTL and IOCTL values. The argument that it somehow prevents
>> out-of-tree modules falls on deaf ears. The argument that it prevents
>> dynamic security modules is subsumed by the other issues surrounding
>> dynamic security modules, and does nothing to decrease the likelihood
>> of that facility going upstream. Especially since, to the best of my
>> knowledge, no one is working on it.
> +/**
> + * struct lsm_id - Identify a Linux Security Module.
> + * @lsm: name of the LSM, must be approved by the LSM maintainers
>
> Why can't you understand that "approved by the LSM maintainers" is a horrible
> requirement for LSM modules which cannot become one of in-tree LSMs?
>
> One of reasons for not every proposed LSM module can become in-tree is out of
> the LSM community's resources for reviewing/maintaining (or failure to acquire
> attention from the LSM community enough to get reviewed).
>
> + * @id: LSM ID number from uapi/linux/lsm.h
>
> Since the LSM community cannot accept all of proposed LSMs due to limited resources,
> the LSM community is responsible for allowing whatever proposed LSMs (effectively any
> publicly available LSMs) to live as out-of-tree LSMs, by approving the LSM name and
> assigning a permanent LSM ID number.
>
> The only exception the LSM community can refuse to approve/assign would be that the name
> is not appropriate (e.g. a LSM module named "FuckYou") or the name is misleading (e.g.
> "selinux+", "smock", "tomato", "apparmour"). Otherwise, no matter how many times you repeat
> "we don't care out-of-tree LSMs" or "I do not intentionally plan to make life difficult for
> the out-of-tree LSMs", this patch is intended to lock out out-of-tree LSMs.

That is a false statement. There is a huge difference between apathy and malice. 

>
> + *
> + * Contains the information that identifies the LSM.
> + */
> +struct lsm_id {
> +	const char	*name;
> +	u64		id;
> +};
>
> Therefore, unless you change the policy for assigning LSM ID, I keep NACK on this change.
>