lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [May]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-05-20 22:45    [W:0.053 / U:0.228 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site