linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH try #3] 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: <7b69d1470707190556n78e52232y7dfea1fd6f47ced@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 19 Jul 2007 07:56:53 -0500
From:	"Scott Preece" <sepreece@...il.com>
To:	"James Morris" <jmorris@...ei.org>
Cc:	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
	"Christian Ehrhardt" <lk@...e.de>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Chris Wright" <chrisw@...s-sol.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	"Stephen Smalley" <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>,
	"Arjan van de Ven" <arjan@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH try #3] security: Convert LSM into a static interface

On 7/19/07, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
>
> > If we could get a few (non-afilliated :) people who work with
> > customers in the security field to tell us whether this is being
> > used, that would be very helpful.  Not sure how to get that.
>
> The mainline kernel does not cater to out of tree code.

Please distinguish between "cater to" and "support". If the kernel
didn't worry about supporting out-of-tree code, then why would there
be loadable module at all?

Christian Ehrhardt already pointed to two reasons for loadable LSMs
that are sufficient to justify keeping them - so you can replace them
iteratively while you're developing them or choose between
alternatives.

Another twist is to use a tool to generate the module from a
policy-definition file; this could be done at boot-time or could be
done to replace the current policy on a running system (perhaps to add
a new domain corresponding to a newly added service). Yes, this would
need to be done with a lot of care, but part of providing mechanism
(rather than policy) is enabling people to use the mechanism in the
ways they prefer.

scott
-- 
scott preece
-
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/