Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] integrity: fix IMA inode leak | From | Mimi Zohar <> | Date | Mon, 08 Jun 2009 08:28:55 -0400 |
| |
On Sun, 2009-06-07 at 16:09 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Sun, 7 Jun 2009, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > > > Mandatory Access Control(MAC) modules (i.e. SELinux, smack, etc) and > > integrity (i.e IMA) are two different aspects of security. The LSM > > hooks, which includes security_inode_free(), are used to implement MAC, > > not integrity. > > So? > > It's under security/integrity. And it's a level of detail that fs/inode.c > really doesn't care about. > > The VFS layer cares NOT AT ALL about your "different aspects of security", > nor should it. The fact that security people think SELinux and IMA are > different is irrelavant - fs/inode.c just doesn't care. Why should it? > > Linus
Today the security calls are synomymous with MAC. If I understand correctly, you're suggesting we need to have a single security layer, which, depending on the hook, calls either MAC or integrity, or both.
Makes sense. Copying the LSM mailing list on this discussion.
Mimi Zohar
| |