Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 19 Apr 2006 12:57:26 -0500 | From | "Emily Ratliff" <> | Subject | Re: [RESEND][RFC][PATCH 2/7] implementation of LSM hooks |
| |
On 4/19/06, Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov> wrote: > BTW, since you point to LOMAC as evidence, can you point to an actual > user community that uses LOMAC? EVM & SLIM are part of IBM's internal supported Linux desktop, so there are quite a few users.
> My concerns with low water mark were noted in > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-security-module&m=113232319627338&w=2 ... And Tim Fraser's and Dave Safford's responses are noted in http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-security-module&m=113323166505015&w=2 http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-security-module&m=113337110408758&w=2 http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-security-module&m=113234278611701&w=2
> If such models can demonstrate their viability, then you can ultimately > submit a patch to extend SELinux/Flask to support them - I have no > problem with that (again, if they can be shown to be viable and > implementation is correct). Dave has an existing implementation with a user base of a formally proven security model. He is addressing implementation concerns and continuing to try to get SLIM accepted. Why should he be required to extend SELinux? - 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/
| |