[lkml]   [2009]   [Jun]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] integrity: fix IMA inode leak
    On Sun, 2009-06-07 at 16:09 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
    > On Sun, 7 Jun 2009, Mimi Zohar wrote:
    > >
    > > Mandatory Access Control(MAC) modules (i.e. SELinux, smack, etc) and
    > > integrity (i.e IMA) are two different aspects of security. The LSM
    > > hooks, which includes security_inode_free(), are used to implement MAC,
    > > not integrity.
    > So?
    > It's under security/integrity. And it's a level of detail that fs/inode.c
    > really doesn't care about.
    > The VFS layer cares NOT AT ALL about your "different aspects of security",
    > nor should it. The fact that security people think SELinux and IMA are
    > different is irrelavant - fs/inode.c just doesn't care. Why should it?
    > Linus

    Today the security calls are synomymous with MAC. If I understand
    correctly, you're suggesting we need to have a single security layer,
    which, depending on the hook, calls either MAC or integrity, or both.

    Makes sense. Copying the LSM mailing list on this discussion.

    Mimi Zohar

     \ /
      Last update: 2009-06-08 14:33    [W:0.022 / U:0.996 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site