Stemming from a security researcher and his team proposing a new Linux Security Module (LSM) three years ago and it not being accepted to the mainline kernel, he raised issue over the lack of review/action to Linus Torvalds and the mailing lists. In particular, seeking more guidance for how new LSMs should be introduced and raised the possibility of taking the issue to the Linux Foundation Technical Advisory Board (TAB).
This mailing list post today laid out that a proposed TSEM LSM for a framework for generic security modeling was proposed but saw little review activity in the past three years or specific guidance on getting that LSM accepted to the Linux kernel. Thus seeking documented guidance on new Linux Security Module submissions for how they should be optimally introduced otherwise the developers are “prepared to pursue this through the [Technical Advisory Board] if necessary.”
How do you even get to a consensus model to tease these things out; when your answer is a refusal to engage with “pointless” things?
It just seems contentious to me, that anyone when considering this kind of rhetoric, would make claims in regards to the level of security that Linux (may) provide. It just feels something akin to playing in the realm of security theater.
Man, some people just love wasting others’ time and then getting mad when they say no more.
Linus’ apathy may keep ten different competing security ideas from each being mainlined, but it’s not impossible for them to continue and prove their worth out of tree until some sort of coherent best practices are established.
Meanwhile, actual security issues will continue to be patched as needed and Linux remains the most analyzed and targeted kernel in the world.
You make valid points. I don’t know that the word apathy is strong enough in this context, shrug. I mean, why not just say the thing? “This needs to be fleshed out”. At least it provides direction and context, (go push sand somewhere else; the TAB) and would probably be quicker/easier to write then sling this tired narrative, and non-answer to what is actually being asked;
(The TSEM LSM people aren’t trying to push a specific thing, they are asking for clarity of the process and particulars by witch a thing should be submitted; because from what I understand, their project (and others) keep hitting walls on the grounds of ‘formatting’ and ‘structure’; as a stop-gap, and thus an incomplete review, of the ideas and contents of the problem/solution set of the project. (Think: “It’s too difficult for me to read the thing, so I won’t until you fix it” – And not name with specifics to what is considered ‘fixed’, or what the process for re-submission is; It’s a backhand way of claiming “secret knowledge” over the thing and then saying “just fix it”. Fix what specifically ? )
That is to say; when outsiders see these kinds of roadblocks, and the responses/narratives of key figures in these spaces is “apathy” of this degree, it feels something to me akin to security theater.
I feel like this is what the Technical Advisory Board should be replying with.