linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][Patch 2/6] integrity: fs hook placement

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Thu, 8 Mar 2007 09:40:36 -0800
From:	Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>
To:	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
Cc:	Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
	Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, safford@...son.ibm.com,
	serue@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, kjhall@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	zohar@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][Patch 2/6] integrity: fs hook placement

* Serge E. Hallyn (serue@...ibm.com) wrote:
> Are you objecting only to the duplication at the callsites, so that an
> fsnotify-type of consolidation of security and integrity hooks would be
> ok?  Or are you complaining that the security_inode_setxattr and
> integrity_inode_setxattr hooks are too similar anyway, and integrity
> modules should just use some lsm hooks for anything which will be
> authoritative?

It's duplication of callsites with many identical implementations
that's the problem.

> (I could see an argument that integirty subsystem should be purely for
> measuring and hence its hooks should never return a value.  Only hitch
> there is that if integrity subsystem hits ENOMEM it should be able to
> refuse the action...)

Right, that's what I was expecting to see, just the measurement
infrastructure.

thanks,
-chris
-
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/