TOMOYO's pull request for v6.12

[Serge E. Hallyn]

On Thu, Oct 03, 2024 at 09:36:00AM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> On 10/2/2024 1:12 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Hopefully by now you've at least seen the TOMOYO v6.12 pull request
> > thread; if you haven't read it yet, I suggest you do so before reading
> > the rest of this mail:
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/0c4b443a-9c72-4800-97e8-a3816b6a9ae2@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp
> >
> > Of the three commits in the pull request, the commit which concerns me
> > the most is 8b985bbfabbe ("tomoyo: allow building as a loadable LSM
> > module").  The commit worries me as it brings management of the TOMOYO
> > LSM callbacks into TOMOYO itself, overriding the LSM framework.
> > Jonathan raises a similar point, although his issue is more focused on
> > the symbol export approach itself, rather than conceptual issues
> > relating to the LSM framework.  I will admit there are some high level
> > similarities to this approach and the BPF LSM, but I believe we can
> > say that the BPF LSM exception is necessary due to the nature of BPF,
> > and not something we want to see duplicated outside of that one
> > special case.
> 
> We wrangled with the BPF developers over a number of issues,
> and in the end gave them something that's a lot more dangerous
> than I'd like. With that in mind I can argue either of:
> 
> 	Let's not do that again, revert.

Just checking - do you mean revert this, but not BPF LSM?  :)

> 	We need to trust our LSM developers in their own code, keep it.
> 
> What Tetsuo has implemented is a scheme that's been bouncing around for
> some time. It is neither especially novel nor elegant. It is intended to
> solve a particular issue, which is that Redhat distributions don't include
> TOMOYO. [I should be corrected if that statement is not true] When we
> talked about loadable modules in the past it was in the context of a
> general mechanism, which I have always said I don't want to preclude.
> 
> I seriously doubt that this change would achieve the goal of getting
> TOMOYO included in Redhat distributions. It seriously increases the

Right, I think this is the biggest reason to request the revert, unless
Redhat or fedora tells us that they would actually enable it.