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, 8 Jun 2009 09:15:00 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <>
To:	Mimi Zohar <>
cc:	Hugh Dickins <>,
	Mimi Zohar <>,
	Andrew Morton <>,
	Serge Hallyn <>,
	James Morris <>,
	Al Viro <>,,,
	David Safford <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] integrity: fix IMA inode leak

On Mon, 8 Jun 2009, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> 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.

I don't think we need a single security layer per se.

But I do think that we _already_ hide IMA conceptually under the 
"security/" subdirectory, and that the VFS layer shouldn't need to care 
about whatever internal details.

We should not have generic code end up having to know about all the 
details, when we already have a conceptual nesting. It would be much 
better for generic code to just have to worry about one security hook that 
then encompasses all the models, than having several different hooks for 
each detail.

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