[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrUBCL1jKfooLaqrJCb-uYrMwYPQL2v-M04NTVf2LoD_fw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 09:05:38 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: David Drysdale <drysdale@...gle.com>
Cc: LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Meredydd Luff <meredydd@...atehouse.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/11] capsicum: implementations of new LSM hooks
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 3:28 AM, David Drysdale <drysdale@...gle.com> wrote:
> If the LSM does not provide implementations of the .file_lookup and
> .file_install LSM hooks, always use the Capsicum implementations.
>
> The Capsicum implementation of file_lookup checks for a Capsicum
> capability wrapper file and unwraps to if the appropriate rights
> are available.
>
> The Capsicum implementation of file_install checks whether the file
> has restricted rights associated with it. If it does, it is replaced
> with a Capsicum capability wrapper file before installation into the
> fdtable.
I think I fall on the "no LSM" side of the fence. This kind of stuff
should be available regardless of selected LSM (as it is in your
code), but until someone has a use case for the LSM hooks in real
LSMs, I don't really see the point.
--Andy
--
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