[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130108063859.GB4537@cachalot>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 10:38:59 +0400
From: Vasily Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>
To: Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
LSM <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
LKLM <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
SE Linux <selinux@...ho.nsa.gov>,
John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>,
Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 0/9] LSM: Multiple concurrent LSMs
On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 20:02 -0800, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> On 1/7/2013 7:01 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Let me ask Andrew's question: Why do you want to do this (what is the
> > use case)? What does this gain us?
>
> There has been an amazing amount of development in system security
> over the past three years. Almost none of it has been in the kernel.
> One important reason that it is not getting done in the kernel is
> that the current single LSM restriction requires an all or nothing
> approach to security. Either you address all your needs with a single
> LSM or you have to go with a user space solution, in which case you
> may as well do everything in user space.
[...]
You should also update Documentation/security/LSM.txt with new "security="
rules and rules of LSM stacking limitations. Motivation of stacking is
probably worth noting in Documentation/ too.
Thanks,
--
Vasily Kulikov
http://www.openwall.com - bringing security into open computing environments
--
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