[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <62704.1222837526@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 01:05:26 -0400
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To: Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>,
Kentaro Takeda <takedakn@...data.co.jp>,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, haradats@...data.co.jp,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [TOMOYO #9 (2.6.27-rc7-mm1) 1/6] LSM adapter functions.
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 19:33:32 PDT, Casey Schaufler said:
> I have always believed that MAC should come first, then DAC, because
> MAC may care if you can see the mode bits. The current DAC before MAC
> is an artifact of the desire for the LSM to behave cleanly as a
> strictly additional mechanism. From an ideal security perspective
> MAC should be first, but the pragmatic DAC first isn't going to cause
> too much grief. If Tomoyo wants to do what I think is the right thing,
> well, it's OK with me.
I'm OK with the MAC going first as well - but unless/until we convert the
rest of the kernel to do MAC-before-DAC, somebody better leave a comment:
/* Yes, this one spot *is* doing MAC-first intentionally */
or similar, just so we don't keep getting patches to "fix" it to DAC-first...
(And yes, newbie janitors *will* submit patches like that - how many times
have we had the 'ndiswrapper-taint-flag' flame war now?)
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists