Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Time to remove LSM (was Re: [RESEND][RFC][PATCH 2/7] implementation of LSM hooks) | From | Arjan van de Ven <> | Date | Mon, 24 Apr 2006 15:40:47 +0200 |
| |
On Mon, 2006-04-24 at 08:29 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Quoting Arjan van de Ven (arjan@infradead.org): > > On Mon, 2006-04-24 at 08:09 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > > Quoting Arjan van de Ven (arjan@infradead.org): > > > > for all such things in the first place. In fact, we already know that to > > > > do auditing, LSM is the wrong thing to do (and that's why audit doesn't > > > > use LSM). It's one of those fundamental linux truths: Trying to be > > > > > > As I recall it was simply decided that LSM must be "access control > > > only", and that was why it wasn't used for audit. > > > > no you recall incorrectly. > > Audit needs to audit things that didn't work out, like filenames that > > don't exist. Audit needs to know what is going to happen before the > > entire "is this allowed" chain is going to be followed. SELInux and > > other LSM parts are just one part of that chain, and there's zero > > guarantee that you get to the LSM part in the chain..... Now of course > > Ah yes. It needed to be authoritative. I did recall incorrectly. > > I suspect some would argue that you are right that LSM is broken, but > only because it wasn't allowed to be authoritative.
authoritative isn't enough; think about it. The VFS isn't ever going to ask "can I open this file" if the file doesn't exist in the first place; same in many other places. You'd have to almost double the hooks, and as I said, to call those hooks "LSM" would be silly and dishonest.
LSM is not Hooks-R-Us. It's a permission model.
- 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/
| |