linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] staging: ion: create one device entry per heap

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 10 Oct 2017 10:11:51 +0100
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:     Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>
Cc:     Benjamin Gaignard <benjamin.gaignard@...aro.org>,
        Sandeep Patil <sspatil@...gle.com>,
        driverdevel <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
        "dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Riley Andrews <riandrews@...roid.com>,
        linux-api@...r.kernel.org, Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] staging: ion: create one device entry per heap

On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 05:10:37PM -0700, Laura Abbott wrote:
> On 10/09/2017 03:08 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 02:25:47PM -0700, Laura Abbott wrote:

> >> Anyway, to move this forward I think we need to see a proof of concept
> >> of using selinux to protect access to specific heaps.

> > Aren't Unix permissions enough with separate files or am I
> > misunderstanding what you're looking to see a proof of concept for?

> The goal is to be able to restrict heap access to certain services
> and selinux groups on Android so straight unix permissions aren't
> sufficient.

Oh, there's Android users for this?  The users I was aware of were
non-Android.  Though even so I'd have thought that given that SELinux is
a superset of Unix file permissions it ought to be sufficient to be able
to use them.  I'd been thinking people were suggesting SELinux as a
replacement for file permissions, using the single file and the greater
capabilities of SELinux.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)