lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Oct]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC] LSM changes for 2.5.38
On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 07:39:40PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > It seems to me that you're arguing both sides here - first you say that
> > a full code audit is needed so you know 'WTF is going on', and then you're
> > saying that it's impossible to know.
>
> The person who performs the audit can know it. But how often will that be
> the author of the LSM module?

We've said on this list a few times that it is important for security
module authors to understand the implications of their decisions.
Deciding to not mediate module parameters is a valid decision. Deciding
to mediate module parameters is a valid decision. One requires very
little thought and sidesteps the matter entirely. The other requires
quite a bit of thought and is difficult to get right -- but that is not
a problem for LSM, per se; it is for the authors of security modules.


--
http://immunix.org/
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:29    [W:1.213 / U:0.008 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site