[PATCH v3 01/13] LSM: Add the lsm_prop data structure.

[Konstantin Andreev]

Paul Moore, 14 Sep 2024:
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 4:49 PM Konstantin Andreev <andreev at swemel.ru> wrote:
>> Casey Schaufler, 10 Sep 2024:
>>> ...
>>> The lsm_prop structure definition is intended to keep the LSM
>>> specific information private to the individual security modules.
>>> ...
>>> index 1390f1efb4f0..1027c802cc8c 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/security.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/security.h
>>> @@ -140,6 +144,22 @@ enum lockdown_reason {
>>> +
>>> +/*
>>> + * Data exported by the security modules
>>> + */
>>> +struct lsm_prop {
>>> +     struct lsm_prop_selinux selinux;
>>> +     struct lsm_prop_smack smack;
>>> +     struct lsm_prop_apparmor apparmor;
>>> +     struct lsm_prop_bpf bpf;
>>> +     struct lsm_prop_scaffold scaffold;
>>> +};
>>
>> This design prevents compiling and loading out-of-tree 3rd party LSM, am I right?
>>
>> Out-of-tree LSM's were discussed recently at
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-security-module/efb8f264-f80e-43b2-8ea3-fcc9789520ec@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp/T/
>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-security-module/960e740f-e5d9-409b-bb2a-8bdceffaae95@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp/T/
>>
>> but it looks like a final decision to ban them is not taken yet.
> 
> For those who haven't read my latest comment in the v6.12 merge window
> pull request, I'll copy-n-paste it here:

I have certainly seen your comment,

> "My focus is on the upstream Linux kernel and ensuring that the
> upstream, in-tree LSMs have the best framework possible to ensure
> their proper operation and ease of development/maintenance.  While I
> have no intention to negatively impact out-of-tree LSMs, I will not
> harm the upstream code base solely to support out-of-tree LSMs.
> Further, if improvements to the upstream LSM framework are determined
> to harm out-of-tree LSMs, that shall be no reason to reject the
> upstream improvements.  I believe this policy is not only consistent
> with that of previous LSM maintainers, but of the general Linux kernel
> as well."

but the matter of fact is … your dispute with Tetsuo Handa still continues.
You are sending controversal signals to the public.
--
Konstantin Andreev