[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47C72365.4060506@tmr.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:11:01 -0500
From: Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com>
To: Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>
CC: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...ru>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, eparis@...isplace.org,
casey@...aufler-ca.com
Subject: Re: SMACK or SELinux, but not both
Stephen Smalley wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 20:28 +1100, James Morris wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Feb 2008, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
>>
>>> If SELinux is registered before SMACK, SMACK panics after
>>> register_security() call.
>>>
>>> If SMACK is registered before SELinux, SELinux panics after
>>> register_security() call.
>>>
>>> Consequently allmodconfig kernel doesn't boot. It would be nice if
>>> some Kconfig magic to exclude each other will be in place.
>> People want to be able to select the security model at boot time, so the
>> option to build both LSMs is required.
>>
>> You can stop SELinux from attempting to register as an LSM via selinux=0,
>> which should allow you to boot with just Smack enabled.
>
> Ideally, one could just boot with security=<module> to select the
> desired primary security module. security=smack, security=selinux, or
> security=capability.
>
> Having to specify selinux=0 smack=0 foo=0 just to get bar wouldn't be
> pretty. Not that anyone would want to do that, of course...
>
And doesn't scale well as we add more security models. Oh, that will
never happen, right? I still like "security="
--
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