Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Time to remove LSM (was Re: [RESEND][RFC][PATCH 2/7] implementation of LSM hooks) | From | Stephen Smalley <> | Date | Thu, 20 Apr 2006 08:20:09 -0400 |
| |
On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 13:52 -0700, Randy.Dunlap wrote: > On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 13:11:54 -0700 Greg KH wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 09:06:57PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Well then, have a look at http://alphagate.hopto.org/multiadm/ > > > >> > > > > > > > >hmm on first sight that seems to be basically an extension to the > > > >existing capability() code... rather than a 'real' LSM module. Am I > > > >missing something here? > > > > > > > > > > (So what's the definition for a "real" LSM module?) > > > > No idea, try submitting the patch :) > > hrm, I guess the smiley is supposed to help?? > > surely someone knows that it takes to qualify as a "real" > LSM module. I would have expected Greg to be in that group > of people.
Herein lies the basic problem with LSM - it is not a well-defined framework in any sense. Versus say the Flask architecture within SELinux, which establishes a framework with well-defined semantics that can support a wide range of security models, but not arbitrary ones.
-- Stephen Smalley National Security Agency
- 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/
| |