[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070626035731.GA16313@vino.hallyn.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:57:31 -0500
From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>
To: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
Cc: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@...e.de>,
Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>,
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 try #2] security: Convert LSM into a static interface
Quoting James Morris (jmorris@...ei.org):
> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
>
> > It's useful for some LSMs to be modular, and LSMs which are y/n options won't
> > have any security architecture issues with unloading at all.
>
> Which LSMs? Upstream, there are SELinux and capabilty, and they're not
> safe as loadable modules.
>
> > The mere fact
> > that SELinux cannot be built as a module is a rather weak argument for
> > disabling LSM modules as a whole, so please don't.
>
> That's not the argument. Please review the thread.
The argument is 'abuse', right?
Abuse is defined as using the LSM hooks for non-security applications,
right?
It seems to me that the community is doing a good job of discouraging
such abuse - by redirecting the "wrong-doers" to implement proper
upstream solutions, i.e. taskstats, the audit subsystem, etc.
Such encouragement seems a far better response than taking away freedoms
and flexibility from everyone.
-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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists