linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] integrity: Linux Integrity Module(LIM)

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]

Date:	Thu, 20 Nov 2008 14:21:38 -0500
From:	david safford <safford@...son.ibm.com>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:	Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...x-foundation.org>,
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
	Serge Hallyn <serue@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] integrity: Linux Integrity Module(LIM)

On Thu, 2008-11-20 at 12:45 -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Ok, the API looks sane to me.  But one big question:  any reason you
> don't just directly call into your implementation instead of all these
> odd hooks?  This seems to be a lot of overhead just for making the code
> less readable..
> 

The consensus in the (insane) security community was to have an
interface with selectable modules similar to LSM and its modules,
so that users could easily choose among a set of integrity providers.

dave
--
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/