Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:30:18 -0000 | Subject | Re: Defense in depth: LSM *modules*, not a static interface | From | "Simon Arlott" <> |
| |
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/
| |