[lkml]   [2007]   [Nov]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static interface)
    (finally starting to make headway through this thread over a month late)

    Quoting Alan Cox (
    > > To reject an LSM for providing "bad" security, IMHO you should have to
    > > show how it is possible to subvert the self-stated goals of that LSM.
    > > Complaints that the LSM fails to meet some goal outside of its stated
    > > purpose is irrelevant. Conjecture that it probably can be violated
    > > because of $contrivance is just so much FUD.
    > That seems to be an appropriate test.
    > > Exception: it is valid to say that the self-stated goal is too narrow to
    > > be useful. But IMHO that bar of "too narrow" should be very, very low.
    > > Defenses against specific modes of attack would be a fine thing to build
    > > up in the library of LSMs, especially if we got a decent stacking module
    > > so that they could be composed.
    > Once you have stacking then it actually at times will make sense to have
    > security modules that do one very precise thing and do it well.

    Hey - I thought it was the other way around? :)

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2007-11-26 21:55    [W:0.041 / U:6.380 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site