lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Oct]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    SubjectRe: Defense in depth: LSM *modules*, not a static interface
    From
    On Tue, October 30, 2007 07:14, Cliffe wrote:
    > And while I acknowledge that many of these layers are currently buried
    > within the kernel (netfilter...) they are security layers which in many
    > cases would probably make sense as stackable security modules.
    >
    > Making the interface static forces mammoth solutions which then must
    > attempt to solve all of the above in one ls*m*. What happened to
    > dividing tasks into easy to manage chunks?

    Would it be possible to have Kconfig select which LSM should handle each
    area of security? Selecting LSM A would automatically disable LSM B and
    C since they both implement the same security functions, while LSM D
    would still be selectable since it implements something else. The default
    capabilities code would then turn off parts of itself that another LSM
    is handling.

    Alternatively the M in LSM can be restored and modules can be stacked.
    It should be possible for the primary LSM to check the security_ops of the
    secondary LSM(s) and complain if it considers there to be an incompatiblity.

    --
    Simon Arlott
    -
    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: 2007-10-30 13:33    [W:3.339 / U:0.228 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site