Cc: Bernd Petrovitsch <bernd@...>, Chris Wright <chrisw@...>, Casey Schaufler <casey@...>, Adrian Bunk <bunk@...>, Simon Arlott <simon@...>, <linux-kernel@...>, <linux-security-module@...>, Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...>, Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@...>, Thomas Fricaccia <thomas_fricacci@...>, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...>, James Morris <jmorris@...>, Crispin Cowan <crispin@...>, Giacomo Catenazzi <cate@...>, Alan Cox <alan@...>
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 09:04:57 -0700
"Ray Lee" <ray-lk@madrabbit.org> wrote:
I absolutely agree it's a layer game.
HOWEVER, even in a layer game we need to have each layer to be
reasonably solid and not just fake security ("snakeoil").
So while I think it is entirely fair to judge a piece of software
against what it intends/claims to do, because other pieces in the layer
game will depend on it to function reasonably well.
So most of the LSM fist-fights have been about disagreement of the
intent; and some about code not living up to its own intend, all mixed
up. Arguing about the intent is less productive imo (as long as it's at
least somewhat reasonable, intend like "I want to add rootkits" doesn't
count obviously), paying attention to check if the code lives up to its
stated intent/purpose on the other hand is immensely useful and needed;
for a given implementation it may mean reducing the scope of the intent
if the implementation just doesn't go as wide as originally thought, or
fixing some issues in the implementation to live up to the intent.
-
