[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:0.057 / U:3.212 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site