Re: [PATCH 0/3] BPF signature verification

[Blaise Boscaccy]

KP Singh <kpsingh@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>> And I'm saying that they are, based on wanting visibility in the LSM
>> layer, passing that along to the end user, and wanting to be able to
>> show correctness, along with mitigating an entire vector of supply chain
>> attacks targeting gen.c.
>
> What supply chain attack?I asked this earlier, you never replied, what
> does a supply chain attack here really look like?
>
>
I responded to that here:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-security-module/87iklhn6ed.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/

Warmest Regards,
Blaise

> - KP
>
>>
>> So in summary, your objection to this is that you feel it's simply "not
>> needed", and those above risks/design problems aren't actually an issue?
>>
>> > Let's have this discussion in the patch series, much easier to discuss
>> > with the code.
>>
>> I think we've all been waiting for that. Yes, lets.