linux-kernel - Re: + smack-version-11c-simplified-mandatory-access-control-kernel.patch added to -mm tree

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: <4747999E.4020201@kernel.org>
Date:	Fri, 23 Nov 2007 19:25:18 -0800
From:	Andrew Morgan <morgan@...nel.org>
To:	casey@...aufler-ca.com
CC:	Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	chrisw@...s-sol.org, darwish.07@...il.com, jmorris@...ei.org,
	method@...icmethod.com, paul.moore@...com,
	LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: + smack-version-11c-simplified-mandatory-access-control-kernel.patch
 added to -mm tree

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Casey Schaufler wrote:
> In the end we can call it CAP_LATE_FOR_DINNER if that's the only way
> I can move forward. CAP_MAC_OVERRIDE is the obvious partner to
> CAP_DAC_OVERRIDE, so that's still my preference. CAP_SMACK_OVERRIDE
> unnecessarily ties it to one LSM, and in spite of what some people
> still seem to think, I see more LSMs in the pipeline.

I'd personally not like to see SMACK appear in a capability name. No
offense Casey, but SMACK may be displaced with YAMAC (*) someday, and
I'd hate to have wasted a capability on it. Using CAP_MAC_OVERRIDE makes
sense to me - even if its not (yet/ever) honored by all MAC LSMs.

I do have a question about whether one capability is sufficient in
general for MAC. Looking at the:

  http://wt.xpilot.org/publications/posix.1e/download.html

last draft, there are no less than 5 capabilities (p173) allocated for
MAC. Presumably there was a good reason for 5 and not 1 back then -
could you summarize what is different now?

Thanks

Andrew

(*) yet-another example of yet-another

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHR5mc+bHCR3gb8jsRAlB9AJsHPi1+fFp1ONKJCMFDpLS1lYG4AwCfYxMX
8aaU+sOBNHU01uldtrJ8cEI=
=/USy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-
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/