Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 20 May 2005 16:41:23 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) | From | Reiner Sailer <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1 of 4] ima: related TPM device driver interal kernel interface |
| |
James Morris <jmorris@redhat.com> wrote on 05/20/2005 04:32:58 PM:
> On Fri, 20 May 2005, Reiner Sailer wrote: > > > > Why are you using LSM for this? > > > > > > LSM should be used for comprehensive access control frameworks which > > > significantly enhance or even replace existing Unix DAC security. > > > > I see LSM is framework for security. IMA is an architecture that > > enforces access control in a different way than SELinux. IMA guarantees > > that executable content is measured and accounted for before > > it is loaded and can access (and possibly corrupt) system resources. > > LSM is an access control framework. Your (few) LSM hooks always return > zero, and don't enforce access control at all. You even have a separate > measurement hook for modules. > > I suggest implementing all of your code via distinct measurement hooks, so > measurement becomes a distinct and well defined security entity within the > kernel.
This is certainly possible. This means that there will be 5 more hooks (such as the one in kernel/module.c, see PATCH 4 of 4).
If the kernel maintainers are in favor of this approach, then there is not much that stands against this.
> LSM should not be used just because it has a few hooks in the right place > for your code. > > > - James > -- > James Morris > <jmorris@redhat.com> > > > >
Thanks Reiner
- 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/
| |