linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V34 00/29] Lockdown as an LSM

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.LRH.2.21.1906251601430.26271@namei.org>
Date:   Tue, 25 Jun 2019 16:04:15 +1000 (AEST)
From:   James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
To:     Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...gle.com>
cc:     LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V34 00/29] Lockdown as an LSM

On Mon, 24 Jun 2019, Matthew Garrett wrote:

> > We are still not resolved on granularity. Stephen has said he's not sure
> > if a useful policy can be constructed with just confidentiality and
> > integrity settings. I'd be interested to know JJ and Casey's thoughts on
> > lockdown policy flexibility wrt their respective LSMs.
> 
> This implementation provides arbitrary granularity at the LSM level,
> though the lockdown LSM itself only provides two levels. Other LSMs
> can choose an appropriate level of exposure.

Ahh, OK, I only looked at the patchset description and had not looked at 
V33 yet.

This is looking good.


-- 
James Morris
<jmorris@...ei.org>