[PATCH v2 3/9] security: define security_kernel_read_blob() wrapper
Mimi Zohar
zohar at linux.vnet.ibm.com
Fri May 18 15:29:36 UTC 2018
On Fri, 2018-05-18 at 07:58 -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> On 5/18/2018 4:30 AM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > Having to define a separate LSM hook for each of the original, non
> > kernel_read_file(), buffer based method callers, kind of makes sense,
> > as the callers themselves are specific, but is it really necessary?
> > Could we define a new, generic LSM hook named
> > security_kernel_buffer_data() for this purpose?
>
> If there are two disparate behaviors wrapped into kernel_read_file()
> Eric (bless him) is right. It should be broken into two hooks. I think
> that if we look (too) carefully we'll find other places where hooks
> should get broken up, or combined*. My question is just how important
> is it that this gets changed?
Other than the LSM call in copy_module_from_user(), this patch set is
adding the LSM call in kexec_load() and firmware_fallback_sysfs().
Eric, the question remains whether we need distinct LSM hooks in each
of these places or can we have a single, generic LSM hook named
security_kernel_buffer_data()?
Mimi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in
the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
More information about the Linux-security-module-archive
mailing list