[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m2637w42tr.fsf@ssh.synack.fr>
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 19:57:52 +0100
From: Samir Bellabes <sam@...ack.fr>
To: Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>
Cc: Michael Stone <michael@...top.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, David Lang <david@...g.hm>,
Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
Valdis Kletnieks <Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu>,
Bryan Donlan <bdonlan@...il.com>,
"C. Scott Ananian" <cscott@...ott.net>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Bernie Innocenti <bernie@...ewiz.org>,
Mark Seaborn <mrs@...hic-beasts.com>,
Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Subject: Re: A basic question about the security_* hooks
Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net> writes:
> I believe you should convice selinux and friends to add support for your
> extension, otherwise no distribution will be able to turn it on, since
> no two security frameworks can be registered simultaneously.
I agree, as a LSM module, this purpose is a no sense, because it will
avoid using another security module.
On the other hand, adding this capacity directly to the syscalls seems
to be a little bit ugly (it reminds me security post_accept hook
strategy of returning or not a value).
But the way to go is to add this directly to existing security models,
if it make sens for them.
sam
--
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