On Thursday 18 October 2007 04:18, Linus Torvalds wrote:The patch doesn't hurt AppArmor, but it's still a step in the wrong direction. Quoting from commit 20510f2f (Convert LSM into a static interface): This is idiotic. Just because there is no safe way to unload SELinux - doesn't mean there is no safe way to unload other LSMs: if nothing but that, unloading is handy during development. - doesn't mean that module *loading* is unsafe. The patch removes module loading as well, which hurts more than removing module unloading. LSM can be abused ... so what, this doesn't mean the interface is bad. Non-LSM loadable modules have been known to do lots of bad things, and yet nobody made them non-loadable either (yet). Non-trivial modules (i.e., practically everything beyond capabilities) become effective only after loading policy, anyway. If you can load policy, you can as well first load a security module without making the system insecure. Thanks, Andreas -
| David Miller | Re: [Ksummit-2008-discuss] Fixing the Kernel Janitors project |
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 002/196] Chinese: rephrase English introduction in HOWTO |
| Mark Lord | Re: 2.6.25-rc8: FTP transfer errors |
| Kamalesh Babulal | Re: 2.6.24-rc8-mm1 |
git: | |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Alexey Dobriyan | Re: [GIT]: Networking |
| Natalie Protasevich | [BUG] New Kernel Bugs |
| bcpa | Binkley/Rfmaill/Cnews scripts?.. |
| Dong Liu | Re: CXterm for LINUX |
| Rogier Wolff | Re: MIPS R3000 board to run Linux, anyone? |
| Theodore Ts'o | The patch to buffer.c seems to work! |
