lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Apr]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [RESEND][RFC][PATCH 2/7] implementation of LSM hooks
    From
    Date
    On Mon, 2006-04-17 at 13:03 -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote:
    > On Mon, 2006-04-17 at 17:23 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
    > > On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 12:06:53PM -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote:
    > > > > I thought of this, see label_all_processes. Unfortunately I found no way of
    > > > > actually doing this. I would need to iterate through the tasklist structure,
    > > > > but the task_lock export is going to be removed from the kernel.
    > > >
    > > > So, if built-in isn't an option, propose an interface to the core
    > > > security framework to allow security modules to perform such
    > > > initialization without needing to directly touch the lock themselves
    > >
    > > NACK. The whole idea of loading security modules after bootup is flawed.
    > > Any scheme that tries to enumerate process and other entinity after the
    > > fact for access control purposes is fundamentally flawed. We're not going
    > > to add helpers or exports for it, I'd rather remove the ability to build
    > > lsm hook clients modular completely.
    >
    > Or, better, remove LSM itself ;)
    >

    at minimum I can see the point to make the lsm hooks compile directly to
    the selinux functions in question when selinux is the security module of
    choice; that'll save quite a bit of performance already


    -
    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: 2006-04-17 19:11    [from the cache]
    ©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean