linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH][RFC] security: Convert LSM into a static interface

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]

Message-ID: <20070625143222.GA11997@vino.hallyn.com>
Date:	Mon, 25 Jun 2007 09:32:22 -0500
From:	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>
To:	Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
Cc:	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
	Andrew Morgan <agm@...gle.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...gle.com>,
	Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] security: Convert LSM into a static interface

Quoting Casey Schaufler (casey@...aufler-ca.com):
> 
> --- "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com> wrote:
> 
> > Quoting James Morris (jmorris@...ei.org):
> > > Convert LSM into a static interface, as the ability to unload a security 
> > > module is not required by in-tree users and potentially complicates the 
> > > overall security architecture.
> > > 
> > > Needlessly exported LSM symbols have been unexported, to help reduce API 
> > > abuse.
> > > 
> > > Module parameters for the capability and root_plug modules have been
> > > converted to kernel parameters.
> > > 
> > > The SECURITY_FRAMEWORK_VERSION macro has also been removed.
> > 
> > Sigh, as much as I would *like* to stay out of this (I don't
> > use modules at all on any system where I can avoid it), won't
> > it make development - and especially testing - of new lsms
> > much more painful and therefore less likely?
> 
> While there's lots of pain involved in developing an LSM
> modern development environments (e.g. virtual machines)
> have reduced the value of loadable modules for debug purposes.
> 
> > I realize there has been a dearth of new LSMs to date,
> 
> but so much excitment over those proposed!
> 
> > but if
> > for instance a new solaris 10 based capability module were written,
> > well, people would want to be able to
> > 
> > 	rmmod capability
> > 	modprobe cap_prm
> 
> I think the value is overrated. You would never want to do that
> in a production environment, and in a debug environment you could
> just as easily reboot and get some start-up testing out of the way.

And in a development environment you can just as easily select
CONFIG_XYZ=y, no?

So we have two options, one which provides greater choice and
flexibility.

-serge
-
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/