| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 09:36:02 -0700 From: Kees Cook <kees.cook@...onical.com> To: Christian Stroetmann <stroetmann@...olinux.com> Cc: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>, linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: Preview of changes to the Security susbystem for 2.6.36 Hi Christian, On Mon, Aug 02, 2010 at 12:19:54PM +0200, Christian Stroetmann wrote: > But we discussed as well that the problem of chaining of small or > large LSMs is not an argument for the existence of the Yama LSM, and > that the LSM architecture should be developed further so that all of > the functionalities of other securtiy packages without an LSM can be > integrated as a whole by a new version of the LSM system in the > future and not by ripping them of like it was done with the Yama LSM > [3]. > You can see these objections [3] as a second NAK, but now from a > company's developer (I haven't said this before, because I'm not a > hard core kernel developer). I'm not sure I understand you, exactly. Are you saying that Yama should not exist because it might grow into a large LSM? -Kees -- Kees Cook Ubuntu Security Team -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists