linux-kernel - Re: Upstream first policy

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.2.00.1003081955010.3669@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Mon, 8 Mar 2010 19:58:25 -0800 (PST)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
cc:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Kyle McMartin <kyle@...artin.ca>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: Upstream first policy

On Mon, 8 Mar 2010, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> 
> Those of you who say we ought to come up with a single framework
> that we can use to Do The Right Thing haven't been reading the code.
> We have such a framework in the LSM.

.. and people are also interested in using (and expanding) the 'notify' 
layer, probably because it is obviously designed for efficiently talking 
at a user-level program about the relevant accesses. Whether that is 
because they are just crazy ("malware detection") or whether it is an 
indication that the LSM layer and current security models are just not 
convenient enough, I dunno.

And whether all that has anything to do with "Do The Rigth Thing" is 
obviously very much unclear, but the interest is clearly there.

			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/