[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.01.0906080913020.6847@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 09:15:00 -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,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
David Safford <safford@...son.ibm.com>
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.
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists