linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] integrity: fix IMA inode leak

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]

Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.01.0906071608040.6847@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Sun, 7 Jun 2009 16:09:27 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
cc:	Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>,
	Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ibm.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Serge Hallyn <serue@...ibm.com>,
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] integrity: fix IMA inode leak



On Sun, 7 Jun 2009, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> 
> Mandatory Access Control(MAC) modules (i.e. SELinux, smack, etc) and
> integrity (i.e IMA) are two different aspects of security.  The LSM
> hooks, which includes security_inode_free(), are used to implement MAC,
> not integrity.

So?

It's under security/integrity. And it's a level of detail that fs/inode.c 
really doesn't care about.

The VFS layer cares NOT AT ALL about your "different aspects of security", 
nor should it. The fact that security people think SELinux and IMA are 
different is irrelavant - fs/inode.c just doesn't care. Why should it?

		Linus
--
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/