[lkml]   [2007]   [Oct]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static interface)

On Oct 24 2007 13:18, Crispin Cowan wrote:
>Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>> On Oct 24 2007 19:11, Simon Arlott wrote:
>>> * (I've got a list of access rules which are scanned in order until one of
>>> them matches, and an array of one bit for every port for per-port default
>>> allow/deny - although the latter could be removed.
>> Besides the 'feature' of inhibiting port binding,
>> is not this task of blocking connections something for a firewall?
>So now you are criticizing his module. Arguing about the merits of
>security semantics. This is exactly why Linus wanted LSM, so we don't
>have to have these kinds of discussions, at least not on LKML :)

This was a question. I was perfectly aware that iptables alone
does not prohibit binding, and there are reasons to inhibit binding.

But sometimes, a coder does not know where to start - chances are,
that someone else wanting to do bind(2) inhibiting is doing it
with a syscall table change. Or coder did not notice that a firewall
is sufficient for the task to be achieved (which is not always the
case - hence the question).
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2007-10-24 22:55    [W:0.147 / U:4.292 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site