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: <20070719131640.GT3801@stusta.de>
Date:	Thu, 19 Jul 2007 15:16:40 +0200
From:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>
To:	Scott Preece <sepreece@...il.com>
Cc:	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	"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 Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 07:56:53AM -0500, Scott Preece wrote:
> 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?
>...

Distribution kernels need modules or the kernel images would be 
extremely large.

> 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.

Why do you need to generate a module for changing a policy?

Software like SELinux contains the mechanisms to change the policy 
without having to change the kernel.

> scott

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

-
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/