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  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:	Mon, 08 Jun 2009 08:28:55 -0400
From:	Mimi Zohar <>
To:	Linus Torvalds <>
Cc:	Hugh Dickins <>,
	Mimi Zohar <>,
	Andrew Morton <>,
	Serge Hallyn <>,
	James Morris <>,
	Al Viro <>,,,
	David Safford <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] integrity: fix IMA inode leak

On Sun, 2009-06-07 at 16:09 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 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

Today the security calls are synomymous with MAC.  If I understand
correctly, you're suggesting we need to have a single security layer,
which, depending on the hook, calls either MAC or integrity, or both.

Makes sense. Copying the LSM mailing list on this discussion.

Mimi Zohar

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists