lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Dec]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 08/28] SECURITY: Allow kernel services to override LSM settings for task actions [try #2]
From
Date

On Tue, 2007-12-11 at 14:37 -0500, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-12-10 at 23:36 +0000, David Howells wrote:
> > Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov> wrote:
> >
> > > From a config file whose pathname would be provided by libselinux (ala
> > > the way in which dbusd imports contexts), or directly as a context
> > > returned by a libselinux function.
> >
> > That sounds too SELinux specific. How do I do it so that it works for any
> > LSM?
>
> You can't. There is no LSM for userspace; LSM specifically disavowed
> any common userspace API, and that was one of our original
> objections/concerns about it.
>
> > Is linking against libselinux is a viable option if it's not available under
> > all LSM models? Is it available under all LSM models? Perhaps Casey can
> > answer this one.
>
> Nope, they would all have their own libraries, if they have a library at
> all. But that isn't your problem - your kernel interface should be
> generic, and your LSM hooks should be generic, but your userspace isn't
> required to be. Have a look at how many programs in the distribution
> currently link against libselinux, whether directly or by dlopen'ing it.
>
> > > > I use to do that, but someone objected... Possibly Karl MacMillan.
> > >
> > > Yes, but I think I disagreed then too.
> >
> > So, who's right?
>
> Karl isn't a maintainer of the SELinux kernel code. And I had thought
> that even he had reconsidered this idea after further discussion.
>

That's what I remember as well - I suggested the transition idea and
then, after discussion, agreed that it wasn't the best approach.

And, as Steve points out, it's not my call to make.

Karl



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-12-12 15:45    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans