[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.02.1209121256380.4482@tundra.namei.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 12:57:37 +1000 (EST)
From: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>,
James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] module: add syscall to load module from fd
On Mon, 10 Sep 2012, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> writes:
> > On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >> This method is a consistent and extensible approach to verifying the
> >> integrity of file data/metadata, including kernel modules. The only
> >> downside to this approach, I think, is that it requires changes to the
> >> userspace tool.
> >
> > I'm fine with this -- it's an expected change that I'll pursue with
> > glibc, kmod, etc. Without the userspace changes, nothing will use the
> > new syscall. :) I've already got kmod (and older module-init-tools)
> > patched to do this locally.
>
> A syscall is the right way to do this. But does it need to be done?
>
> 1) Do the LSM guys really want this hook?
Yes.
Acked-by: James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>
--
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