[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080318064842.GA23167@kroah.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 23:48:42 -0700
From: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To: Stephen Smalley <sds@...ch.ncsc.mil>
Cc: casey@...aufler-ca.com, "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Containers <containers@...ts.osdl.org>,
Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cgroups: implement device whitelist lsm (v3)
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 09:26:39AM -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> > > The original promise was that LSM would allow kernels to be built that
> > > shed capabilities altogether,
> >
> > I don't remember that, but it's been a long time so it could be true.
>
> "One of the explicit requirements to get LSM into the kernel was to have
> the ability to make capabilities be a module. This allows the embedded
> people to completely remove capabilities, as they really want this. I
> don't think we can ignore this, no matter how much of a pain in the butt
> it is :)" - Greg KH
>
> Quoted from:
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-security-module&m=99236500727804&w=2
>
> Ironically, since that time, capabilities have doubled in size and still
> can't be removed from the core kernel since LSM didn't push the state
> into the security blobs.
Maybe we need to seriously revisit this and perhaps rip capabilities
back out and put it always into the kernel if it's always a requirement.
Comments made 7 years ago might be totally wrong when we have now
learned how this all has worked out...
thanks,
greg k-h
--
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