On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Casey Schaufler
[off-list ref] wrote:

On 4/10/2017 9:43 PM, Kees Cook wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 1:00 PM, Djalal Harouni [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 9:26 PM, Casey Schaufler [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

I think that would be the prudent approach. There is still
the possibility that blob sharing (or full stacking, if you
prefer) won't be accepted any time soon.

Ok Casey! I will wait for more feedback, and if other maintainers do
not object, I will convert it back to rhashtables in next iterations
making sure that it should be simple to convert later to a blob
sharing mechanism.

Would it be possible just to add a single field to task_struct if this
LSM is built in? I feel like rhashtables is a huge overhead when a
single field is all that's needed.

Special casing the task_struct based on which modules
are compiled in would work, but I'm under the impression
that there's a strong desire to keep to one pointer for
security module information in the major structures.

Right, I meant as far as keeping this patch set unblocked by the other one...

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security