Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static interface)

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Jan Engelhardt
Date: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 - 4:13 pm

On Oct 24 2007 18:02, David P. Quigley wrote:

If I had to run mtadm and aa alongside each other, I would put aa
into the "secondary" LSM slot.

A number of people have said by now that LSM is supposed to be a
restrict-my-rights block of code. As such, I would put the special,
tiny, give-me-rights code at the front so that it be executed first.
This is what would be intended with mtadm. It really just gives you a
few caps when switching to UID 900 (or whatever), just as Linux
traditionally gives you full caps when switching to UID 0 (e.g. by
executing setuid files). From there on, it is just restrictions, and
the order in which LSMs restrict your actions is probably not so
important as long as they do restrict it.

Thankfully, Linux capabilities are so strangely designed that they
actually become useful - they give you so much power that you _can_
only restrict things afterwards again :-)
-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Linus Torvalds, (Wed Oct 17, 7:18 pm)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Andreas Gruenbacher, (Fri Oct 19, 1:26 pm)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Linus Torvalds, (Fri Oct 19, 1:40 pm)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, James Morris, (Fri Oct 19, 2:07 pm)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Jan Engelhardt, (Sat Oct 20, 4:05 am)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, James Morris, (Sat Oct 20, 3:57 pm)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Adrian Bunk, (Sun Oct 21, 3:59 pm)
Re: Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Crispin Cowan, (Sun Oct 21, 6:12 pm)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch], Arjan van de Ven, (Mon Oct 22, 9:09 pm)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch], James Morris, (Mon Oct 22, 9:56 pm)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch], Arjan van de Ven, (Mon Oct 22, 9:57 pm)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch], Chris Wright, (Mon Oct 22, 10:16 pm)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Giacomo Catenazzi, (Mon Oct 22, 10:44 pm)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Jan Engelhardt, (Tue Oct 23, 1:55 am)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch], Jan Engelhardt, (Tue Oct 23, 2:10 am)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch], Chris Wright, (Tue Oct 23, 2:13 am)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Jan Engelhardt, (Tue Oct 23, 2:13 am)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch], Jan Engelhardt, (Tue Oct 23, 2:14 am)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Giacomo A. Catenazzi, (Tue Oct 23, 2:14 am)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Jan Engelhardt, (Tue Oct 23, 2:18 am)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Serge E. Hallyn, (Tue Oct 23, 8:20 am)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Jan Engelhardt, (Tue Oct 23, 8:28 am)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Serge E. Hallyn, (Tue Oct 23, 8:34 am)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch], Jeremy Fitzhardinge, (Tue Oct 23, 5:31 pm)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch], Chris Wright, (Tue Oct 23, 5:32 pm)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch], Arjan van de Ven, (Tue Oct 23, 10:06 pm)
Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion ..., Jan Engelhardt, (Wed Oct 24, 4:13 pm)
Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion ..., Bernd Petrovitsch, (Thu Oct 25, 2:19 am)
Re: LSM conversion to static interface, Valdis.Kletnieks, (Thu Oct 25, 3:23 am)
Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion ..., Arjan van de Ven, (Thu Oct 25, 10:10 am)
Re: eradicating out of tree modules, Stefan Richter, (Sat Oct 27, 10:31 am)
Re: eradicating out of tree modules, Stefan Richter, (Sun Oct 28, 2:25 am)
Re: eradicating out of tree modules, Tilman Schmidt, (Sun Oct 28, 5:01 am)
Re: eradicating out of tree modules, Stefan Richter, (Sun Oct 28, 7:37 am)
Re: eradicating out of tree modules, Simon Arlott, (Sun Oct 28, 7:59 am)
Re: eradicating out of tree modules, Tilman Schmidt, (Sun Oct 28, 9:55 am)
Re: eradicating out of tree modules, Tilman Schmidt, (Sun Oct 28, 11:51 am)
Re: eradicating out of tree modules, Adrian Bunk, (Sun Oct 28, 12:25 pm)
Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework, Tilman Schmidt, (Sun Oct 28, 12:42 pm)
Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework, Jan Engelhardt, (Sun Oct 28, 1:46 pm)
Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion ..., Arjan van de Ven, (Sun Oct 28, 10:12 pm)
Re: eradicating out of tree modules, Tilman Schmidt, (Mon Oct 29, 5:29 pm)
Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion ..., Bernd Petrovitsch, (Tue Oct 30, 2:41 am)
Re: eradicating out of tree modules, linux-os (Dick Johnson), (Tue Oct 30, 6:11 am)
Re: eradicating out of tree modules, Xavier Bestel, (Tue Oct 30, 6:19 am)
Re: eradicating out of tree modules, Greg KH, (Tue Oct 30, 8:30 am)