this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2025

97 points (100.0% liked)

Linux

10629 readers

750 users here now

A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system (except the memes!)

Also, check out:

Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Ategon@programming.dev

anzo@programming.dev

dwraf_of_ignorance@programming.dev

Torvalds On Linux Security Modules: "I Already Think We Have Too Many Of Those Pointless Things" (www.phoronix.com)

submitted 1 day ago by cm0002@literature.cafe to c/linux@programming.dev

14 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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."

top 14 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] MNByChoice@midwest.social 34 points 1 day ago (1 children)

A list of Linux Security Modules is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_Security_Modules

List of Linux Security Modules

snark

(I didn't read the wiki page closely. Why was the heading "Adoption" and not something more clear?)

AppArmor
Integrity Policy Enforcement (IPE)[6]
Landlock[7][8]
LoadPin[9]
SafeSetID[10]
SELinux
Smack
TOMOYO
Yama[11]

As a long time SysAdmin, but not your SysAdmin, I have used two of these. Both had terrible documentation for which many "must use" paid software vendors advise disabling the Security Module as a first step.

If random software vendors' lowest paid intern cannot figure out the settings for arbitrary Linux Security Modules, then the first line of the directions will always be to disable the security module. This leads to them not being used in many cases where the security module would be helpful.

snark

(To explain, it is only the cheapest and most inexperienced person that is typically responsible for doing things as they are not in meetings all day.)

I agree with Linus.

[+] rmt@programming.dev -14 points 1 day ago (2 children)

If the lowest paid intern gets to use AI, then it will probably help them configure it properly.. the docs generally aren't bad (of the ones I've seen/used), but they're not newbie/intern level docs.

[–] bitcrafter@programming.dev 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I barely trust natural intelligence with anything relating to security.

[–] rmt@programming.dev -3 points 1 day ago

"Trust but verify" ... which just means doing due diligence as a professional, whether the crap^H^H^H^Hquality code and documentation is written by a human or AI.

Humans are incredibly good at saying dumb shit while making it seem like it could be the right thing, but LLMs are arguably better at it.

And you, and I, and everyone here, will fall for it... not always, but too often. We are all lazy thinkers by nature.

[–] MNByChoice@midwest.social 1 points 20 hours ago

Perhaps.

Of course, the creators of the security modules could build tools to help them be used better. Maybe not on first release, but at least after other complain about the difficulty. AppArmor did attempt some tools, and is far better than SELinux. Still not great.

[–] Cris_Color@lemmy.world 17 points 1 day ago (2 children)

What exactly is a linux security module? Like what do they do?

Like when there's a security issue, it gets patched- what does a module of some kind add to that?

[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 15 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Search result for Linux Security Modules

Linux Security Modules (LSM) is a framework allowing the Linux kernel to support, without bias, a variety of computer security models.

ie, implement security policies other than the standard model such as mandatory access controls.

[–] who@feddit.org 3 points 1 day ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_Security_Modules

[–] GlenRambo@jlai.lu 3 points 1 day ago

Where can I find more info on his Linux as an organisation is run/structured? As in what hand does Linus play, what are these mailing lists, how do the devs work on things and how are they approved, what role rhe TAB (and others?) plays etc.

[–] l3db3tt3r@piefed.social -1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

"Yes, I know that security people always think they know best, and they all disagree with each other, which is why we already have tons of security modules. Ask ten people what model is the right one, and you get fifteen different answers."

"I'm not in the least interested in becoming some kind of arbiter or voice of sanity in this."

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.

[–] themoken@startrek.website 40 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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.

[–] l3db3tt3r@piefed.social 1 points 21 hours ago

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;

Thus seeking documented guidance on new Linux Security Module submissions for how they should be optimally introduced.

(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.

[–] ulterno@programming.dev 3 points 1 day ago

prove their worth out of tree until some sort of coherent best practices are established

I feel like this is what the Technical Advisory Board should be replying with.

[–] raviiishing@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 day ago

Man, some people just love wasting others' time and then getting mad when they say no more.