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

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Chris Wright <chrisw@...>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...>, Adrian Bunk <bunk@...>, Casey Schaufler <casey@...>, Simon Arlott <simon@...>, Chris Wright <chrisw@...>, <linux-kernel@...>, <linux-security-module@...>, Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...>, Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@...>, Thomas Fricaccia <thomas_fricacci@...>, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...>, James Morris <jmorris@...>, Crispin Cowan <crispin@...>, Giacomo Catenazzi <cate@...>, Alan Cox <alan@...>
Date: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 - 10:19 pm

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:41:28 -0700
Chris Wright <chrisw@sous-sol.org> wrote:


I'll be happy to help out; I'd consider my self neutral in this space
not having worked with any of the LSM out there. I do think we need to
be somewhat critical to what we accept; we should at least be able to
filter out "pretend security" somehow. (this is not the same as saying
that you're bad if you only provide a limited security, in the
contrary, I strongly believe in simple pieces. What I mean is that we
should be critical to things that appear/claim to be strong but are
not).

Secondly, we should make sure that no new holes are added (the original
SMACK series suffered from this, Al Viro helped getting that reviewed
bigtime).

In addition we probably should strive to getting some sort of rough
"this is sort of where we draw the line" guideline set up, just to keep
things more objective.

(Oh and of course, if a security module is deeply involved in another
kernel subsystem, say networking or the VFS, very obviously we should
consult and listen to the respective maintainers of that subsystem; LSM
is not there to be a big hook to bypass the process of well maintained
subsystems)

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