lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jun]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] integrity: fix IMA inode leak
From
Date
On Mon, 2009-06-08 at 09:15 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Mon, 8 Jun 2009, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> I don't think we need a single security layer per se.
>
> But I do think that we _already_ hide IMA conceptually under the
> "security/" subdirectory, and that the VFS layer shouldn't need to care
> about whatever internal details.
>
> We should not have generic code end up having to know about all the
> details, when we already have a conceptual nesting. It would be much
> better for generic code to just have to worry about one security hook that
> then encompasses all the models, than having several different hooks for
> each detail.
>
> Linus

Ok, so instead of having a full fledge single security layer, only add
the security layer for those places where both the LSM hooks and IMA
co-exist: security_file_mmap, security_bprm_check, security_inode_alloc,
security_inode_free, and security_file_free. As the LSM hooks are called
'security_XXXX', the call would look something like:

security_all_inode_free() {
ima_inode_free()
security_inode_free()
}

Mimi Zohar




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-06-08 20:47    [W:1.777 / U:0.080 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site