[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090923112018.GA2946@infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 07:20:19 -0400
From: "hch@...radead.org" <hch@...radead.org>
To: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@...hos.com>
Cc: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>,
Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@...e.de>,
Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>,
Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"viro@...iv.linux.org.uk" <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"alan@...ux.intel.com" <alan@...ux.intel.com>,
"hch@...radead.org" <hch@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: fanotify as syscalls
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 09:39:33AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> Lived with it because there was no other option. We used LSM while it was
> available for modules but then it was taken away.
>
> And not all vendors even use syscall interception, not even across platforms,
> of which you sound so sure about. You can't even scan something which is not
> in your namespace if you are at the syscall level. And you can't catch things
> like kernel nfsd. No, syscall interception is not really appropriate at all.
The "Anti-Malware" industry is just snake oil anyway. I think the
proper approach to support it is just to add various no-op exports claim
to do something and all the people requiring anti-virus on Linux will be
just as happy with it.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists