Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 8 Mar 2007 12:46:47 -0600 | From | "Serge E. Hallyn" <> | Subject | Re: [RFC][Patch 1/6] integrity: new hooks |
| |
Quoting Casey Schaufler (casey@schaufler-ca.com): > > --- "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > It's unfortunate, agreed, but > > > > use of LSM as an integrity framework was also a > > no-go. > > You're going to have to justify this assertion.
You misunderstand. I wasn't saying it wouldn't work :) I was saying that it's been said repeatedly that evm should be implemented as an integrity, not security, module.
I think it should be done as both. The part which measures the integrity of files should be an integrity subsystem. The part which uses those results to either allow/refuse actions or take some other action (i.e. shut down the system) should be an lsm.
> I know of at least one work-in-progress for which > LSM works just fine. Not to mention the Integrity > claims of SELinux.
-serge - 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/
| |