[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0808181159400.15109@asgard.lang.hm>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 12:04:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: david@...g.hm
To: Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
cc: Jan Harkes <jaharkes@...cmu.edu>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, tvrtko.ursulin@...hos.com,
Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>, davecb@....com,
Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
malware-list@...ts.printk.net,
Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [malware-list] scanner interface proposal was: [TALPA] Intro to
a linux interface for on access scanning
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008, Eric Paris wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-08-18 at 14:35 -0400, Jan Harkes wrote:
>
>> The devil is in the details, and besides everyone trying to heap other
>> things on, one thing that keeps getting brought up, and seemingly keeps
>> getting ignored is the fact that there already is a perfectly reasonable
>> interface to pass file system events (open, close, read, write, etc) to
>> userspace applications in the form of FUSE which has already in some
>> ways solved issues wrt. subtle deadlocks that can happen when you bounce
>> from an in-kernel context to a userspace application.
>
> Can you help me write/prototype something that will work for every
> regular file anywhere on the system including the kernel binary
> in /boot, the glibc libraries in /lib/ld-linux.so, /sbin/ldconfig and
> every file on every USB stick you put into the machine? When all of
> these are on separate partitions? Every file under / needs to be
> exported to the scanner. I'm very willing to believe fuse is the way to
> go for an HSM, but I don't see how to get every single file on the
> system through the FUSE based scanner.
>
> Yes propagation is an important use of file scanning (maybe the
> biggest), but we clearly can't secure every part of the border, and I
> don't know how to use fuse to do it all rather than just pieces and
> parts.
>
> You're absolutely right about this thread droning on. But I've got code
> that solves the problems. If someone else shows me better code rather
> than talk I'm all for it!
the issue is that the kernel developers are not that interested in
creating one-off interfaces for anti-virus scanners. If the interfaces are
more general and able to be used for a wider variety of problems they are
much more interested in having them implemented.
unfortunantly you went off and developed a bunch of code before talking to
people about what the appropriate interfaces would look like, (this is a
common problem, see the 'how to participate in the kernel' document at
http://ldn.linuxfoundation.org/book/how-participate-linux-community)
David Lang
--
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