Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] integrity: fix IMA inode leak | From | Mimi Zohar <> | Date | Mon, 08 Jun 2009 14:44:15 -0400 |
| |
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
| |