Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 22 Oct 2002 08:22:26 -0400 (EDT) | From | Stephen Smalley <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] remove sys_security |
| |
On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Crispin Cowan wrote:
> Therefore, the sys_security syscall has been removed. LSM-aware > applications that want to talk to security modules can do so through a > file system interface. This will work for WireX, and Smalley says it > will work for SELinux. I hope it will work for others.
Actually, with regard to using a pseudo filesystem interface, I said that we could investigate it, but I have doubts about cleanly supporting the extended forms of existing calls (e.g. execve_secure, mkdir_secure, msgrcv_secure, recvmsg_secure, etc) using such an interface. I raised the same issue when sys_security was originally discussed on the lsm list long ago. SELinux extends the POSIX API to incorporate security (specifically flexible mandatory access control) as a first class notion.
However, I understand Christoph's objection to sys_security and am not trying to revive that debate. We can hopefully have a dialogue about the SELinux API with the kernel developers at a later time and come to some consensus on a set of specific system calls that can be added to the kernel to support equivalent functionality to the SELinux API.
-- Stephen D. Smalley, NAI Labs ssmalley@nai.com
- 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/
| |