lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Apr]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: Time to remove LSM (was Re: [RESEND][RFC][PATCH 2/7] implementation of LSM hooks)
    From
    Date
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2006-04-20 15:18    [W:0.025 / U:62.560 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site