On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Casey Schaufler <ca...@schaufler-ca.com> wrote: > On 4/10/2017 9:43 PM, Kees Cook wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 1:00 PM, Djalal Harouni <tix...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 9:26 PM, Casey Schaufler <ca...@schaufler-ca.com> >>> wrote: >>>> 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
