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]

Date:	Sun, 24 Jun 2007 23:54:24 -0500
From:	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>
To:	Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>
Cc:	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.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 Chris Wright (chrisw@...s-sol.org):
> * Serge E. Hallyn (serge@...lyn.com) wrote:
> > 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?
> 
> Dev, hopefully not.  Testing, well, perhaps.
> 
> > I realize there has been a dearth of new LSMs to date, 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
> 
> The problem is it's not necessarily even safe to do rmmod at all.
> And modprobe may require extra labelling, or extra checks for
> unlabelled objects (perhaps not so much for your example).

Right, and given that it's trivial for the author of an LSM which
shouldn't be modular to make the LSM a boolean config rather than
tristate, it doesn't seem like a good reason to take away the
ability to have LSM modules.

-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/