From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from wind.enjellic.com (wind.enjellic.com [76.10.64.91]) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 464F01A4F1F; Thu, 3 Oct 2024 15:44:05 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=76.10.64.91 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1727970247; cv=none; b=QiQPt/DEUdJRwaTwZuwJXvgORlFqv1lSe0Xald/5VL0cicoq1MVjEQLMuiHwX+WkGRKe2Nnk3fUR0Vtunt2jT0uzNfEQ+fFoNK5WIvhJnWVZaZ8kus1YPI4g0j66weyTiO+nCLirb1Ol5Jv7Rmzfk3cOyuiZZhwcciNFl56mV3I= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1727970247; c=relaxed/simple; bh=EJyjRNZkUYKY3jz4lZ+oTG1AXfsQ5x87I5lih2T8CqM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:Mime-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=EE8b+5gUg6/pVm54U+qeOFLBCPJx43YgDcrU4W3Jl9h7XyAx+1itJpAKKHFoJy4nM7uBX8VBnnNovEbzhdino0EUHUUsSvrarGutqs7biozTbknpr6X2E6DqyfMFIz+TNgUSKuQb2IXiZPd+Hl6rHK0BUUIE9iSoru6YXxdkXEA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=enjellic.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=wind.enjellic.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=76.10.64.91 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=enjellic.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=wind.enjellic.com Received: from wind.enjellic.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wind.enjellic.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 493FhaMn004347; Thu, 3 Oct 2024 10:43:36 -0500 Received: (from greg@localhost) by wind.enjellic.com (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 493FhaME004346; Thu, 3 Oct 2024 10:43:36 -0500 Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2024 10:43:36 -0500 From: "Dr. Greg" To: John Johansen Cc: Linus Torvalds , Paul Moore , Jonathan Corbet , Tetsuo Handa , LKML , linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] tomoyo update for v6.12 Message-ID: <20241003154336.GB3267@wind.enjellic.com> Reply-To: "Dr. Greg" References: <0c4b443a-9c72-4800-97e8-a3816b6a9ae2@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <877cavdgsu.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> <20241002103830.GA22253@wind.enjellic.com> <033eb4d9-482b-4b70-a251-dc8bcc738f40@canonical.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <033eb4d9-482b-4b70-a251-dc8bcc738f40@canonical.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Greylist: Sender passed SPF test, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.3 (wind.enjellic.com [127.0.0.1]); Thu, 03 Oct 2024 10:43:37 -0500 (CDT) On Wed, Oct 02, 2024 at 07:27:47PM -0700, John Johansen wrote: > On 10/2/24 03:38, Dr. Greg wrote: > >On Tue, Oct 01, 2024 at 09:36:16AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > >Good morning Linus, I hope the week is going well for you. > > > >Some reflections, for the record, on this issue. > > > >>On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 at 07:00, Paul Moore wrote: > >>> > >>>Linus, it's unclear if you're still following this thread after the > >>>pull, but can you provide a little insight on your thoughts here? > > > >>I absolutely hate the whole "security people keep arguing", and I > >>cannot personally find it in myself to care about tomoyo. I don't > >>even know where it is used - certainly not in Fedora, which is the > >>only distro I can check quickly. > >> > >>If the consensus is that we should revert, I'll happily revert. This > >>was all inside of the tomoyo subdirectory, so I didn't see it as > >>some kind of sidestepping, and treated the pull request as a regular > >>"another odd security subsystem update". > > > >I see that Paul Moore has further responded with commentary about the > >'LSM community' responding to this issue. I wanted, on behalf of our > >project and in support of Tetsuo's concerns, to register directly with > >you a sense of jaded skepticism about the notion of a community > >response. > > > >Fixing Tetsuo's issue, at least to the extent it can be fixed, > >requires technical improvements in the Linux security architecture. > yes and that is correct place to do it. Doing it within a single > LSM is very much the wrong approach Just going out the door and saw this e-mail Your e-mail crossed with one I just sent over in the kernel code loading side of this thread/debate. Will look forward to seeing your thoughts there. As always, Dr. Greg The Quixote Project - Flailing at the Travails of Cybersecurity https://github.com/Quixote-Project