Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 26 Jun 2007 13:40:48 -0500 | From | "Serge E. Hallyn" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH try #2] security: Convert LSM into a static interface |
| |
Quoting Greg KH (greg@kroah.com): > On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 09:06:44AM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > Quoting Adrian Bunk (bunk@stusta.de): > > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 10:57:31PM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > > > Quoting James Morris (jmorris@namei.org): > > > > > On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > It's useful for some LSMs to be modular, and LSMs which are y/n options won't > > > > > > have any security architecture issues with unloading at all. > > > > > > > > > > Which LSMs? Upstream, there are SELinux and capabilty, and they're not > > > > > safe as loadable modules. > > > > > > > > > > > The mere fact > > > > > > that SELinux cannot be built as a module is a rather weak argument for > > > > > > disabling LSM modules as a whole, so please don't. > > > > > > > > > > That's not the argument. Please review the thread. > > > > > > > > The argument is 'abuse', right? > > > > > > > > Abuse is defined as using the LSM hooks for non-security applications, > > > > right? > > > > > > > > It seems to me that the community is doing a good job of discouraging > > > > such abuse - by redirecting the "wrong-doers" to implement proper > > > > upstream solutions, i.e. taskstats, the audit subsystem, etc. > > > > > > > > Such encouragement seems a far better response than taking away freedoms > > > > and flexibility from everyone. > > > > > > We are not living in a world where everyone had good intentions... > > > > Oh no, i took a wrong turn somewhere :) > > > > > For _some_ "wrong-doers" your approach works. > > > > > > But how do you convince the "wrong-doers" who do things like putting > > > MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") into their binary-only modules and who ignore you > > > and get away because noone sues them? > > > > Do these really exist? > > Yes they do. > > > Maybe noone sues them because noone knows who they are... > > Maybe no one knows because the people doing the legal action against > them are trying to be nice and do it quietly.
So they're being nice to the violaters, and then clamping down on everyone...
> And legal action takes time, it is quite slow going unfortunatly. > > Heck, I've seen code that is even properly licensed under the GPL abuse > this security layer for things it was not ment to do at all, and that > stuff comes from _very_ big companies that really should know better...
But that's back to the other type of 'abuse' which i was originally talking about, and which IMO is being well addressed through education.
As for the others, I have no better suggestions. I wish I did.
> So I agree that we should unexport it. It will make people who want to > abuse the interface at least think twice about it.
And those who don't abuse it too.
> thanks, > > greg "I want to mark structures read-only" k-h
And I know I'm not the one who's going to stop you...
-serge - 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/
| |