Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Subject | Re: [RESEND][RFC][PATCH 2/7] implementation of LSM hooks | From | Arjan van de Ven <> | Date | Mon, 17 Apr 2006 19:08:26 +0200 |
| |
On Mon, 2006-04-17 at 13:03 -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote: > On Mon, 2006-04-17 at 17:23 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 12:06:53PM -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote: > > > > I thought of this, see label_all_processes. Unfortunately I found no way of > > > > actually doing this. I would need to iterate through the tasklist structure, > > > > but the task_lock export is going to be removed from the kernel. > > > > > > So, if built-in isn't an option, propose an interface to the core > > > security framework to allow security modules to perform such > > > initialization without needing to directly touch the lock themselves > > > > NACK. The whole idea of loading security modules after bootup is flawed. > > Any scheme that tries to enumerate process and other entinity after the > > fact for access control purposes is fundamentally flawed. We're not going > > to add helpers or exports for it, I'd rather remove the ability to build > > lsm hook clients modular completely. > > Or, better, remove LSM itself ;) >
at minimum I can see the point to make the lsm hooks compile directly to the selinux functions in question when selinux is the security module of choice; that'll save quite a bit of performance already
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |