[lkml]   [2007]   [Mar]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC][Patch 2/6] integrity: fs hook placement
Quoting Chris Wright (
> * Serge E. Hallyn ( wrote:
> > Are you objecting only to the duplication at the callsites, so that an
> > fsnotify-type of consolidation of security and integrity hooks would be
> > ok? Or are you complaining that the security_inode_setxattr and
> > integrity_inode_setxattr hooks are too similar anyway, and integrity
> > modules should just use some lsm hooks for anything which will be
> > authoritative?
> It's duplication of callsites with many identical implementations
> that's the problem.

Yes it's ugly...

But I guess it gets a point across :)

> > (I could see an argument that integirty subsystem should be purely for
> > measuring and hence its hooks should never return a value. Only hitch
> > there is that if integrity subsystem hits ENOMEM it should be able to
> > refuse the action...)
> Right, that's what I was expecting to see, just the measurement
> infrastructure.

So what you are saying is EVM would stay an LSM, with a cooperating
integrity subsystem *just* doing measurements?

That's kind of what i was expecting too, however that doesn't fit as
well with the idea that an integrity subsystem prevents the need for lsm
stacking. I think the idea was that evm would still be able to enforce
integrity of selinux xattrs without it stack with selinux. So I can see
where this approach came from.

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: 2007-03-08 19:05    [W:0.065 / U:32.004 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site