| Message ID | 20231110222038.1450156-6-kpsingh@kernel.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested |
| Delegated to: | Paul Moore |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Reduce overhead of LSMs with static calls | expand |
On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 11:20:37PM +0100, KP Singh wrote: > [...] > --- > security/Kconfig | 11 +++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+) Did something go missing from this patch? I don't see anything depending on CONFIG_SECURITY_HOOK_LIKELY (I think this was working in v7, though?) Regardless, Paul, please take patches 1-4, they bring us measurable speed-ups across the board. -Kees > > diff --git a/security/Kconfig b/security/Kconfig > index 52c9af08ad35..317018dcbc67 100644 > --- a/security/Kconfig > +++ b/security/Kconfig > @@ -32,6 +32,17 @@ config SECURITY > > If you are unsure how to answer this question, answer N. > > +config SECURITY_HOOK_LIKELY > + bool "LSM hooks are likely to be initialized" > + depends on SECURITY && EXPERT > + default SECURITY_SELINUX || SECURITY_SMACK || SECURITY_TOMOYO || SECURITY_APPARMOR > + help > + This controls the behaviour of the static keys that guard LSM hooks. > + If LSM hooks are likely to be initialized by LSMs, then one gets > + better performance by enabling this option. However, if the system is > + using an LSM where hooks are much likely to be disabled, one gets > + better performance by disabling this config. > + > config SECURITYFS > bool "Enable the securityfs filesystem" > help > -- > 2.42.0.869.gea05f2083d-goog >
On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 12:36 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 11:20:37PM +0100, KP Singh wrote: > > [...] > > --- > > security/Kconfig | 11 +++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+) > > Did something go missing from this patch? I don't see anything depending > on CONFIG_SECURITY_HOOK_LIKELY (I think this was working in v7, though?) > > Regardless, Paul, please take patches 1-4, they bring us measurable > speed-ups across the board. As I mentioned when you were poking me off-list, this is in my review queue and I will get to it when it reaches the top. I can promise you that continued nudging doesn't move the patchset further up in the queue, it actually has the opposite effect.
On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 12:46 PM Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 12:36 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 11:20:37PM +0100, KP Singh wrote: > > > [...] > > > --- > > > security/Kconfig | 11 +++++++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+) > > > > Did something go missing from this patch? I don't see anything depending > > on CONFIG_SECURITY_HOOK_LIKELY (I think this was working in v7, though?) I guess while I'm at it, and for the sake of the mailing list, it is worth mentioning that I voiced my dislike of the CONFIG_SECURITY_HOOK_LIKELY Kconfig option earlier this year yet it continues to appear in the patchset. It's hard to give something priority when I do provide some feedback and it is apparently ignored. > > Regardless, Paul, please take patches 1-4, they bring us measurable > > speed-ups across the board. > > As I mentioned when you were poking me off-list, this is in my review > queue and I will get to it when it reaches the top. I can promise you > that continued nudging doesn't move the patchset further up in the > queue, it actually has the opposite effect.
On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 12:55:16PM -0500, Paul Moore wrote: > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 12:46 PM Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 12:36 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 11:20:37PM +0100, KP Singh wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > --- > > > > security/Kconfig | 11 +++++++++++ > > > > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+) > > > > > > Did something go missing from this patch? I don't see anything depending > > > on CONFIG_SECURITY_HOOK_LIKELY (I think this was working in v7, though?) > > I guess while I'm at it, and for the sake of the mailing list, it is > worth mentioning that I voiced my dislike of the > CONFIG_SECURITY_HOOK_LIKELY Kconfig option earlier this year yet it > continues to appear in the patchset. It's hard to give something > priority when I do provide some feedback and it is apparently ignored. The CONFIG was created specifically to address earlier concerns about not being able to choose whether to use this performance improvement. :P What's the right direction forward?
On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 1:22 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 12:55:16PM -0500, Paul Moore wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 12:46 PM Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 12:36 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 11:20:37PM +0100, KP Singh wrote: > > > > > [...] > > > > > --- > > > > > security/Kconfig | 11 +++++++++++ > > > > > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > Did something go missing from this patch? I don't see anything depending > > > > on CONFIG_SECURITY_HOOK_LIKELY (I think this was working in v7, though?) > > > > I guess while I'm at it, and for the sake of the mailing list, it is > > worth mentioning that I voiced my dislike of the > > CONFIG_SECURITY_HOOK_LIKELY Kconfig option earlier this year yet it > > continues to appear in the patchset. It's hard to give something > > priority when I do provide some feedback and it is apparently ignored. > > The CONFIG was created specifically to address earlier concerns about > not being able to choose whether to use this performance improvement. :P > What's the right direction forward? Are you honestly uncertain after our discussions today? I'll be honest and say that I'm a little confused as I thought I made it very clear when I told you to just be patient off-list, and reminded you in this thread that the patchset was in my review queue and I will get to it once it bubbles to the top. I don't know what else to say here ... ? As far as the CONFIG_SECURITY_HOOK_LIKELY patch, looking back at my comments from September [1] there is a clear statement that I am not in favor of this patch along with a brief explanation as to why: "I'm not in favor of adding a Kconfig option for something like this. If you have an extremely well defined use case then you can probably do the work to figure out the "correct" value for the tunable, but for a general purpose kernel build that will have different LSMs active, a variety of different BPF LSM hook implementations at different times, etc. there is little hope to getting this right." ... and that was back when the knob actually did something, as you pointed out in this thread, the v8 version of this patch doesn't appear to do anything, which is really baffling and not a good sign. As far as what to do about this patch, in our off-list discussion I asked you and KP to refrain from respinning the patchset just to get rid of this patch, but keep it in mind for future submissions. Hopefully by repeating the important bits of the conversation you now understand that there is nothing you can do at this moment to speed my review of this patchset, but there are things you, and KP, can do in the future if additional respins are needed. However, if you are still confused, it may be best to go do something else for a bit and then revisit this email because there is nothing more that I can say on this topic at this point in time. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-security-module/CAHC9VhSSX0KRuWRURUmt2tUis6fbbmozUbcoeAPkLRmfR2jqAg@mail.gmail.com/
On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 03:51:47PM -0500, Paul Moore wrote: > Hopefully by repeating the important bits of the conversation you now > understand that there is nothing you can do at this moment to speed my > review of this patchset, but there are things you, and KP, can do in > the future if additional respins are needed. However, if you are > still confused, it may be best to go do something else for a bit and > then revisit this email because there is nothing more that I can say > on this topic at this point in time. I moved to the list because off-list discussions (that I got involuntarily CCed into and never replied to at all) tend to be unhelpful as no one else can share in any context they may provide. And I'm not trying to rush you; I'm trying to make review easier. While looking at the v8 again I saw an obvious problem with it, so I commented on it so that it's clear to you that it'll need work when you do get around to the review. As far as the CONFIG topic, I think we're talking past each other (it IS figuring out the correct value, but it looks like you don't want it even to be a choice at all), but we can discuss that more when this series bubbles up your list.
On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 4:13 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 03:51:47PM -0500, Paul Moore wrote: > > Hopefully by repeating the important bits of the conversation you now > > understand that there is nothing you can do at this moment to speed my > > review of this patchset, but there are things you, and KP, can do in > > the future if additional respins are needed. However, if you are > > still confused, it may be best to go do something else for a bit and > > then revisit this email because there is nothing more that I can say > > on this topic at this point in time. > > I moved to the list because off-list discussions (that I got involuntarily > CCed into and never replied to at all) tend to be unhelpful as no one else > can share in any context they may provide. And I'm not trying to rush > you; I'm trying to make review easier. From my perspective whatever good intentions you had at the start were completely lost when you asked "What's the right direction forward?" after I had already explained things multiple times *today*. That's the sort of thing that drives really bothers me. > While looking at the v8 again I > saw an obvious problem with it, so I commented on it so that it's clear > to you that it'll need work when you do get around to the review. That's fair. The Kconfig patch shouldn't have even been part of the v8 patchset as far as I'm concerned, both because I explained I didn't want to merge something like that (and was ignored) and because it doesn't appear to do anything. From where I sit this was, and remains, equally parts comical and frustrating.
On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 04:43:57PM -0500, Paul Moore wrote: > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 4:13 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 03:51:47PM -0500, Paul Moore wrote: > > > Hopefully by repeating the important bits of the conversation you now > > > understand that there is nothing you can do at this moment to speed my > > > review of this patchset, but there are things you, and KP, can do in > > > the future if additional respins are needed. However, if you are > > > still confused, it may be best to go do something else for a bit and > > > then revisit this email because there is nothing more that I can say > > > on this topic at this point in time. > > > > I moved to the list because off-list discussions (that I got involuntarily > > CCed into and never replied to at all) tend to be unhelpful as no one else > > can share in any context they may provide. And I'm not trying to rush > > you; I'm trying to make review easier. > > From my perspective whatever good intentions you had at the start were > completely lost when you asked "What's the right direction forward?" > after I had already explained things multiple times *today*. That's > the sort of thing that drives really bothers me. Okay, I understand now. Sorry for frustrating you! By "way forward", I meant I didn't understand how to address what looked like conflicting feedback. I think my confusion was over separating the goal ("this feature should be automatically enabled when it is known to be useful") from an interpretation of earlier feedback as "I don't want a CONFIG [that leaves this up to the user]", when what you really wanted understood was "I don't want a CONFIG *ever*, regardless of whether it picks the correct setting automatically". > > > While looking at the v8 again I > > saw an obvious problem with it, so I commented on it so that it's clear > > to you that it'll need work when you do get around to the review. > > That's fair. The Kconfig patch shouldn't have even been part of the > v8 patchset as far as I'm concerned, both because I explained I didn't > want to merge something like that (and was ignored) and because it > doesn't appear to do anything. From where I sit this was, and > remains, equally parts comical and frustrating. Agreed. :) Anyway, when you do review it, I think you can just ignore patch 5, and if a v9 isn't needed, a brand new patch for that logic can be created later.
On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 11:05 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 04:43:57PM -0500, Paul Moore wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 4:13 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 03:51:47PM -0500, Paul Moore wrote: > > > > Hopefully by repeating the important bits of the conversation you now > > > > understand that there is nothing you can do at this moment to speed my > > > > review of this patchset, but there are things you, and KP, can do in > > > > the future if additional respins are needed. However, if you are > > > > still confused, it may be best to go do something else for a bit and > > > > then revisit this email because there is nothing more that I can say > > > > on this topic at this point in time. > > > > > > I moved to the list because off-list discussions (that I got involuntarily > > > CCed into and never replied to at all) tend to be unhelpful as no one else > > > can share in any context they may provide. And I'm not trying to rush > > > you; I'm trying to make review easier. > > > > From my perspective whatever good intentions you had at the start were > > completely lost when you asked "What's the right direction forward?" > > after I had already explained things multiple times *today*. That's > > the sort of thing that drives really bothers me. > > Okay, I understand now. Sorry for frustrating you! By "way forward", > I meant I didn't understand how to address what looked like conflicting > feedback. I think my confusion was over separating the goal ("this > feature should be automatically enabled when it is known to be useful") > from an interpretation of earlier feedback as "I don't want a CONFIG [that > leaves this up to the user]", when what you really wanted understood was > "I don't want a CONFIG *ever*, regardless of whether it picks the correct > setting automatically". > > > > > > While looking at the v8 again I > > > saw an obvious problem with it, so I commented on it so that it's clear > > > to you that it'll need work when you do get around to the review. > > > > That's fair. The Kconfig patch shouldn't have even been part of the > > v8 patchset as far as I'm concerned, both because I explained I didn't > > want to merge something like that (and was ignored) and because it > > doesn't appear to do anything. From where I sit this was, and > > remains, equally parts comical and frustrating. Paul, as I said I will include it in v3 and we can drop it if that's the consensus. https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CACYkzJ7KBBJV-CWPkMCqT6rK6yVEOJzhqUjvWzp9BAm-rx3Gsg@mail.gmail.com/ Following that, I received Acks on the patch, so I kept it. I wasn't sure if this was going to be perceived as "ignoring your feedback". Definitely not my intention. I was just giving an option for folks who wanted to test the patch so that we get the defaults right. I am totally okay with us dropping the config patch. > > Agreed. :) Anyway, when you do review it, I think you can just ignore > patch 5, and if a v9 isn't needed, a brand new patch for that logic can > be created later. > > -- > Kees Cook
On 2023/12/09 7:05, Kees Cook wrote: > Okay, I understand now. Sorry for frustrating you! By "way forward", > I meant I didn't understand how to address what looked like conflicting > feedback. I think my confusion was over separating the goal ("this > feature should be automatically enabled when it is known to be useful") > from an interpretation of earlier feedback as "I don't want a CONFIG [that > leaves this up to the user]", when what you really wanted understood was > "I don't want a CONFIG *ever*, regardless of whether it picks the correct > setting automatically". Is it possible to change the direction from "call all individual callbacks from security/security.c" to "call next callback at end of current callback if current callback succeeded and next callback is defined, and security/security.c calls only the first callback" ( https://lkml.kernel.org/r/38b318a5-0a16-4cc2-878e-4efa632236f3@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp ), something like static int module_specific_some_ops(args) { if (logic_for_this_module(arg)) { return -EPERM; } return 0; } static int autogenerated_some_ops(args) { int ret = module_specific_some_ops(args); if (ret == 0) { ret = static_call(next_registered_hook)(args); } return ret; } and let LSM_HOOK_INIT() macro generate autogenerated_some_ops() part ?
On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 5:40 PM KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 11:05 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 04:43:57PM -0500, Paul Moore wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 4:13 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 03:51:47PM -0500, Paul Moore wrote: > > > > > Hopefully by repeating the important bits of the conversation you now > > > > > understand that there is nothing you can do at this moment to speed my > > > > > review of this patchset, but there are things you, and KP, can do in > > > > > the future if additional respins are needed. However, if you are > > > > > still confused, it may be best to go do something else for a bit and > > > > > then revisit this email because there is nothing more that I can say > > > > > on this topic at this point in time. > > > > > > > > I moved to the list because off-list discussions (that I got involuntarily > > > > CCed into and never replied to at all) tend to be unhelpful as no one else > > > > can share in any context they may provide. And I'm not trying to rush > > > > you; I'm trying to make review easier. > > > > > > From my perspective whatever good intentions you had at the start were > > > completely lost when you asked "What's the right direction forward?" > > > after I had already explained things multiple times *today*. That's > > > the sort of thing that drives really bothers me. > > > > Okay, I understand now. Sorry for frustrating you! By "way forward", > > I meant I didn't understand how to address what looked like conflicting > > feedback. I think my confusion was over separating the goal ("this > > feature should be automatically enabled when it is known to be useful") > > from an interpretation of earlier feedback as "I don't want a CONFIG [that > > leaves this up to the user]", when what you really wanted understood was > > "I don't want a CONFIG *ever*, regardless of whether it picks the correct > > setting automatically". > > > > > > > > > While looking at the v8 again I > > > > saw an obvious problem with it, so I commented on it so that it's clear > > > > to you that it'll need work when you do get around to the review. > > > > > > That's fair. The Kconfig patch shouldn't have even been part of the > > > v8 patchset as far as I'm concerned, both because I explained I didn't > > > want to merge something like that (and was ignored) and because it > > > doesn't appear to do anything. From where I sit this was, and > > > remains, equally parts comical and frustrating. > > > Paul, as I said I will include it in v3 and we can drop it if that's > the consensus. > > https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CACYkzJ7KBBJV-CWPkMCqT6rK6yVEOJzhqUjvWzp9BAm-rx3Gsg@mail.gmail.com/ > > Following that, I received Acks on the patch, so I kept it. I wasn't > sure if this was going to be perceived as "ignoring your feedback". > Definitely not my intention. I was just giving an option for folks who > wanted to test the patch so that we get the defaults right. I am > totally okay with us dropping the config patch. <heavy sarcasm>I'm glad you're okay with dropping a patch I said I wasn't going to merge three months ago. I'm also glad you're okay with dropping a patch that does absolutely nothing.</heavy sarcasm> Come on KP, you're better than this. Continuing to carry a patch that I've said I'm not going to merge only creates confusion about what will be accepted/supported (see today's exchange as a perfect example). There is no need to keep the patch going "for reference", to record ACKs, or anything similar to that; all the reviews, ACKs, etc. happened on a public list so we have that covered from a historical perspective. I suppose there is a worthy offshoot discussion about consensus and maintainer discretion, but I'm too tired and annoyed to give that discussion the attention it deserves, so let's just say that when I say stuff like I did back in the v2 patchset that should be taken as a "regardless of what consensus there may be, I'm not going to merge this patch."
On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 11:59 PM Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 5:40 PM KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 11:05 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 04:43:57PM -0500, Paul Moore wrote: > > > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 4:13 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 03:51:47PM -0500, Paul Moore wrote: > > > > > > Hopefully by repeating the important bits of the conversation you now > > > > > > understand that there is nothing you can do at this moment to speed my > > > > > > review of this patchset, but there are things you, and KP, can do in > > > > > > the future if additional respins are needed. However, if you are > > > > > > still confused, it may be best to go do something else for a bit and > > > > > > then revisit this email because there is nothing more that I can say > > > > > > on this topic at this point in time. > > > > > > > > > > I moved to the list because off-list discussions (that I got involuntarily > > > > > CCed into and never replied to at all) tend to be unhelpful as no one else > > > > > can share in any context they may provide. And I'm not trying to rush > > > > > you; I'm trying to make review easier. > > > > > > > > From my perspective whatever good intentions you had at the start were > > > > completely lost when you asked "What's the right direction forward?" > > > > after I had already explained things multiple times *today*. That's > > > > the sort of thing that drives really bothers me. > > > > > > Okay, I understand now. Sorry for frustrating you! By "way forward", > > > I meant I didn't understand how to address what looked like conflicting > > > feedback. I think my confusion was over separating the goal ("this > > > feature should be automatically enabled when it is known to be useful") > > > from an interpretation of earlier feedback as "I don't want a CONFIG [that > > > leaves this up to the user]", when what you really wanted understood was > > > "I don't want a CONFIG *ever*, regardless of whether it picks the correct > > > setting automatically". > > > > > > > > > > > > While looking at the v8 again I > > > > > saw an obvious problem with it, so I commented on it so that it's clear > > > > > to you that it'll need work when you do get around to the review. > > > > > > > > That's fair. The Kconfig patch shouldn't have even been part of the > > > > v8 patchset as far as I'm concerned, both because I explained I didn't > > > > want to merge something like that (and was ignored) and because it > > > > doesn't appear to do anything. From where I sit this was, and > > > > remains, equally parts comical and frustrating. > > > > > > Paul, as I said I will include it in v3 and we can drop it if that's > > the consensus. > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CACYkzJ7KBBJV-CWPkMCqT6rK6yVEOJzhqUjvWzp9BAm-rx3Gsg@mail.gmail.com/ > > > > Following that, I received Acks on the patch, so I kept it. I wasn't > > sure if this was going to be perceived as "ignoring your feedback". > > Definitely not my intention. I was just giving an option for folks who > > wanted to test the patch so that we get the defaults right. I am > > totally okay with us dropping the config patch. > > <heavy sarcasm>I'm glad you're okay with dropping a patch I said I > wasn't going to merge three months ago. I'm also glad you're okay > with dropping a patch that does absolutely nothing.</heavy sarcasm> The patch does something (it's in the patch description). But it's something that you don't think is worth tweaking and that's fine. > > Come on KP, you're better than this. Continuing to carry a patch that > I've said I'm not going to merge only creates confusion about what > will be accepted/supported (see today's exchange as a perfect > example). There is no need to keep the patch going "for reference", Okay, I won't. I honestly did not think this was that big a deal and would bother you so much and, please do assume good intent, I did not want to create confusion here. - KP > to record ACKs, or anything similar to that; all the reviews, ACKs, > etc. happened on a public list so we have that covered from a > historical perspective. > > I suppose there is a worthy offshoot discussion about consensus and > maintainer discretion, but I'm too tired and annoyed to give that > discussion the attention it deserves, so let's just say that when I > say stuff like I did back in the v2 patchset that should be taken as a > "regardless of what consensus there may be, I'm not going to merge > this patch." > > -- > paul-moore.com
On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 6:06 PM KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 11:59 PM Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 5:40 PM KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org> wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 11:05 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 04:43:57PM -0500, Paul Moore wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 4:13 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 03:51:47PM -0500, Paul Moore wrote: > > > > > > > Hopefully by repeating the important bits of the conversation you now > > > > > > > understand that there is nothing you can do at this moment to speed my > > > > > > > review of this patchset, but there are things you, and KP, can do in > > > > > > > the future if additional respins are needed. However, if you are > > > > > > > still confused, it may be best to go do something else for a bit and > > > > > > > then revisit this email because there is nothing more that I can say > > > > > > > on this topic at this point in time. > > > > > > > > > > > > I moved to the list because off-list discussions (that I got involuntarily > > > > > > CCed into and never replied to at all) tend to be unhelpful as no one else > > > > > > can share in any context they may provide. And I'm not trying to rush > > > > > > you; I'm trying to make review easier. > > > > > > > > > > From my perspective whatever good intentions you had at the start were > > > > > completely lost when you asked "What's the right direction forward?" > > > > > after I had already explained things multiple times *today*. That's > > > > > the sort of thing that drives really bothers me. > > > > > > > > Okay, I understand now. Sorry for frustrating you! By "way forward", > > > > I meant I didn't understand how to address what looked like conflicting > > > > feedback. I think my confusion was over separating the goal ("this > > > > feature should be automatically enabled when it is known to be useful") > > > > from an interpretation of earlier feedback as "I don't want a CONFIG [that > > > > leaves this up to the user]", when what you really wanted understood was > > > > "I don't want a CONFIG *ever*, regardless of whether it picks the correct > > > > setting automatically". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > While looking at the v8 again I > > > > > > saw an obvious problem with it, so I commented on it so that it's clear > > > > > > to you that it'll need work when you do get around to the review. > > > > > > > > > > That's fair. The Kconfig patch shouldn't have even been part of the > > > > > v8 patchset as far as I'm concerned, both because I explained I didn't > > > > > want to merge something like that (and was ignored) and because it > > > > > doesn't appear to do anything. From where I sit this was, and > > > > > remains, equally parts comical and frustrating. > > > > > > > > > Paul, as I said I will include it in v3 and we can drop it if that's > > > the consensus. > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CACYkzJ7KBBJV-CWPkMCqT6rK6yVEOJzhqUjvWzp9BAm-rx3Gsg@mail.gmail.com/ > > > > > > Following that, I received Acks on the patch, so I kept it. I wasn't > > > sure if this was going to be perceived as "ignoring your feedback". > > > Definitely not my intention. I was just giving an option for folks who > > > wanted to test the patch so that we get the defaults right. I am > > > totally okay with us dropping the config patch. > > > > <heavy sarcasm>I'm glad you're okay with dropping a patch I said I > > wasn't going to merge three months ago. I'm also glad you're okay > > with dropping a patch that does absolutely nothing.</heavy sarcasm> > > The patch does something (it's in the patch description). But it's > something that you don't think is worth tweaking and that's fine. > > > Come on KP, you're better than this. Continuing to carry a patch that > > I've said I'm not going to merge only creates confusion about what > > will be accepted/supported (see today's exchange as a perfect > > example). There is no need to keep the patch going "for reference", > > Okay, I won't. I honestly did not think this was that big a deal and > would bother you so much and, please do assume good intent, I did not > want to create confusion here. The patch itself isn't the problem, it's at the end of the patchset and easily dropped. The problem is that you pinged me off-list to try and get me to move your patchset up the review queue, which isn't something I appreciate, especially when the feedback I provided previously was not acted upon ... and yes, I've heard your arguments about why you continued to carry the patch, but please understand when I explicitly say "no thank you" to a patch, I want you to drop that patch; "no thank you" shouldn't be ambiguous. To summarize: 1. Don't ping me off-list to review patchsets. I personally find that incredibly annoying and it guarantees that the patchset gets pushed to the end of the list (spiteful? sure, but it helps soothe the jagged nerves of this haggard maintainer). 2. Take maintainer feedback seriously. If you ignore feedback, providing a proper review tends to be a waste of time; there are plenty of other patchsets with authors who are receptive to comments. Anyway, go enjoy your weekend and just do better next time. What's done is done.
diff --git a/security/Kconfig b/security/Kconfig index 52c9af08ad35..317018dcbc67 100644 --- a/security/Kconfig +++ b/security/Kconfig @@ -32,6 +32,17 @@ config SECURITY If you are unsure how to answer this question, answer N. +config SECURITY_HOOK_LIKELY + bool "LSM hooks are likely to be initialized" + depends on SECURITY && EXPERT + default SECURITY_SELINUX || SECURITY_SMACK || SECURITY_TOMOYO || SECURITY_APPARMOR + help + This controls the behaviour of the static keys that guard LSM hooks. + If LSM hooks are likely to be initialized by LSMs, then one gets + better performance by enabling this option. However, if the system is + using an LSM where hooks are much likely to be disabled, one gets + better performance by disabling this config. + config SECURITYFS bool "Enable the securityfs filesystem" help