Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 15 Jun 2005 17:42:41 -0500 | From | "Serge E. Hallyn" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] 3 of 5 IMA: LSM-based measurement code |
| |
Quoting Chris Wright (chrisw@osdl.org): > * serue@us.ibm.com (serue@us.ibm.com) wrote: > > Quoting Chris Wright (chrisw@osdl.org): > > > The primary purpose of the hooks is access control. Some of them, of > > > course, are helpers to keep labels coherent. IIRC, James objected > > > because the measurement data was simply collected from these hooks. > > > > Ok, so to be clear, any module which does not directly impose some form > > of access control is not eligible for an LSM? > > That's exactly the intention, yes.
Ok, thanks.
I thought it was intended to be more general than that - in fact I specifically thought it was not intended to be purely for single machine authentication decisions within a single kernel module, but that anything which would aid in enabling new security features, locally or remotely, would be game. (Which - it means nothing - but I would clearly have preferred :)
Thanks for setting me straight.
-serge
- 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/
| |