linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Version 3 (2.6.23-rc8) Smack: Simplified Mandatory Access Control Kernel

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: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0710012240270.7130@fbirervta.pbzchgretzou.qr>
Date:	Mon, 1 Oct 2007 22:49:48 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...putergmbh.de>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
cc:	casey@...aufler-ca.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	Paul Moore <paul.moore@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Version 3 (2.6.23-rc8) Smack: Simplified Mandatory Access
 Control Kernel


On Sep 30 2007 01:16, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> 
>>  Documentation/Smack.txt       |  104 +
>>  security/Kconfig              |    1 
>>  security/Makefile             |    2 
>>  security/smack/Kconfig        |   10 
>>  security/smack/Makefile       |    9 
>>  security/smack/smack.h        |  207 ++
>>  security/smack/smack_access.c |  345 ++++
>>  security/smack/smack_lsm.c    | 2685 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  security/smack/smackfs.c      | 1201 ++++++++++++++
>>  9 files changed, 4564 insertions(+)
>
>My major non-technical concern is that Casey Schaufler might get hit by a
>bus.  If this happens, we can remove the feature in three minutes (that
>diffstat again), but that may not be feasible if people have come to rely
>upon the feature.
>
>otoh, if a significant number of people are using smack, presumably someone
>else would step up to maintain smack post-bus.  The risk seems acceptable
>to me.

I bet that the number of people submitting patches / possibly maintaining it
is hyperbelic to the code size. Everyone that runs away from selinux's
code size and/or "complexity" is a potential smack/aa user/contributor.

>Is smack useful without a patched ls, sshd and init.d?  What is the status
>of getting those userspace patches merged?  ie: do you know who to send the
>diffs to, and are they likely to take them?

As long as one does not need to recompile userspace (like it is the case with
libselinux), it wins.
-
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/