Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 15 Jun 2005 15:49:21 -0700 | From | Chris Wright <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] 3 of 5 IMA: LSM-based measurement code |
| |
* Serge E. Hallyn (serue@us.ibm.com) wrote: > 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 :)
The problem with being more general is it becomes a more attractive target for abuse.
thanks, -chris - 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/
| |