[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4707DE96.4090400@tmr.com>
Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:14:30 -0400
From: Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com>
To: Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@....com>
CC: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
casey@...aufler-ca.com, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Version 3 (2.6.23-rc8) Smack: Simplified Mandatory Access
Control Kernel
Kyle Moffett wrote:
> On Oct 04, 2007, at 21:44:02, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> What we want from the LSM is the ability to say -EPERM when we can
>> clearly articulate that we want to disallow something.
>
> This sort of depends on perspective; typically with security
> infrastructure you actually want "... the ability to return success when
> we can clearly articulate that we want to *ALLOW* something". File
> permissions work this way; we don't have a list of forbidden users
> attached to each file, we have an owner, a group, and a mode
> representing positive permissions. With that said in certain high-risk
> environments you need something even stronger that cannot be changed by
> the "owner" of the file, if we don't entirely trust them,
>
Other than ACLs, of course, which do allow blacklisting individual users.
--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com>
"We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot
-
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