Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 12 Jul 2001 20:04:05 +0100 | From | Anton Altaparmakov <> | Subject | Re: Security hooks, "standard linux security" & embedded use |
| |
At 19:47 12/07/2001, Greg KH wrote: >On Thu, Jul 12, 2001 at 07:37:36PM +0100, Anton Altaparmakov wrote: > > > > This seems very good in view of implementing ACL support for NTFS, too. - > > We have all the NTFS layout knowledge to do it now. We just lack the > > kernel/user space infrastructure. > > > > When designing this modular security infrastructure it would be useful if > > it is made generic enough to allow callbacks into user space for > permission > > checking. > >The current model lets you do whatever you want in your kernel module. >It imposes no policy, that's up to you.
Ok, that's fair enough. A wrapper module could always be written that then in turn invokes user space. That's good enough for me although it makes for additional overhead but I guess that is not too bad.
>All the better to keep userspace callbacks for security out of my >kernels, for that way is ripe for problems (for specific examples why, >see the linux-security-module mailing list archives.)
Oh, sure. There are problems. I don't deny that. But I am not too sure that those problems outweigh the problems created by putting in huge amounts of code into the kernel which could live outside it just as well. - IMHO the kernel should be as small as possible rather than contain everything under the sun just because it's easier to do that way...
Best regards,
Anton
-- "Nothing succeeds like success." - Alexandre Dumas -- Anton Altaparmakov <aia21 at cam.ac.uk> (replace at with @) Linux NTFS Maintainer / WWW: http://linux-ntfs.sf.net/ ICQ: 8561279 / WWW: http://www-stu.christs.cam.ac.uk/~aia21/
- 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/
| |