[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1156440849.2476.21.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 13:34:09 -0400
From: David Safford <safford@...son.ibm.com>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Serge E Hallyn <sergeh@...ibm.com>, kjhall@...ibm.com,
Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
LSM ML <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
David Safford <safford@...ibm.com>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] SLIM main patch
On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 18:05 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> It is a matter of the timing and the device. You need to do revocation
> at the device level because your security state change must occur after
> the devices have all been dealt with. This is why I said you need the
> core of revoke() to do this.
In a typical system, most applications are started at the correct level,
and we don't have to demote/promote them. In those cases where demotion
or promotion are needed, only a small number actually already have
access that needs to be revoked. Of those, most involve shmem, which
I believe we are revoking safely, as we don't have the same problems
with drivers and incomplete I/O. In the remaining cases, where we really
can't revoke safely, we could simply not allow the requested access, and
not demote/promote the process.
I think this would give us a useful balance of allowing "safe" demotion
or promotions, while not requiring general revocation. Does this sound
like a reasonable approach?
dave
-
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