On 3/7/2018 11:18 AM, Sargun Dhillon wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 9:45 AM, Casey Schaufler <ca...@schaufler-ca.com> 
> wrote:
>> On 3/6/2018 11:23 PM, Sargun Dhillon wrote:
>>> This commit should have no functional change. It changes the security hook
>>> list heads struct into an array. Additionally, it exposes all of the hooks
>>> via an enum. This loses memory layout randomization as the enum is not
>>> randomized.
>> Please explain why you want to do this. I still dislike it.
> Do you dislike it because of the loss of randomization, or some other reason?

I dislike a huge array of untyped function pointers.
I dislike the loss of type checking in security.c

> The reason for not just having a second list_heads is that it's
> somewhat ugly having to replicate that structure twice -- once for
> dynamic hooks, and once for 'static' hooks.

There was discussion about this some time ago. In the case
where you don't allow dynamic hooks, you mark the lists ro_after_init
whereas in the case with them you don't, but use the locking.

> Instead, we have one enum that LSMs can use and two arrays of heads
> rather than an entire unrolled set of list_heads.

But how is this better? What is the advantage?

> If we had a way to randomize this, would it make you comfortable?

Reply via email to