[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.00.1011160953170.30359@tundra.namei.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 09:58:37 +1100 (EST)
From: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
To: Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
cc: Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
Dan Rosenberg <drosenberg@...curity.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Eugene Teo <eugeneteo@...nel.org>,
Kees Cook <kees.cook@...onical.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix dmesg_restrict build failure with CONFIG_EMBEDDED=y
and CONFIG_PRINTK=n
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010, Eric Paris wrote:
> Not sure how that's possible. I mean, I guess it's possible if the
> fabled LSM reimplements the cap call, but I'm not sure how you can
> remove a restrictive only security check without 'weakening' the system
> in some way.
If generic security logic is mixed into a capability call, then not
implementing the cap call also loses the generic security logic.
e.g. dmesg_restrict should always be verified, regardless of whether
cap_security() is called or not.
If cap_syslog() should always be called, then it should not be possible
not not call it :-)
- James
--
James Morris
<jmorris@...ei.org>
--
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