Home » Mailing list archives » linux-kernel » 2007 » October » 30

Re: Defense in depth: LSM *modules*, not a static interface

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
[view in full thread]
From: Crispin Cowan <crispin@...>
To: Al Viro <viro@...>
Cc: Cliffe <cliffe@...>, <linux-kernel@...>, <linux-security-module@...>
Subject: Re: Defense in depth: LSM *modules*, not a static interface
Date: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 - 3:55 am

Al Viro wrote:
Frank's point was that the static interface makes layering somewhere
between impractical and impossible. The static interface change should
be dumped so that layering is at least possible. Whether any given
security module is worth while is a separate issue.

I.e. that there are bad medicines around is a poor excuse to ban
syringes and demand that everyone be born with a strong immune system.

Why is it that security flame wars always end up reasoning with absurd
analogies? :-)

Crispin

-- 
Crispin Cowan, Ph.D.               http://crispincowan.com/~crispin
CEO, Mercenary Linux		   http://mercenarylinux.com/
	       Itanium. Vista. GPLv3. Complexity at work

-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
Messages in current thread:
Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion t..., Rob Meijer, (Mon Oct 29, 3:04 pm)
Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion t..., Casey Schaufler, (Mon Oct 29, 4:27 pm)
Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion t..., Crispin Cowan, (Mon Oct 29, 3:41 pm)
Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion t..., Peter Dolding, (Tue Oct 30, 1:13 am)
Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion t..., Jan Engelhardt, (Tue Oct 30, 2:42 pm)
Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion t..., Peter Dolding, (Tue Oct 30, 7:38 pm)
Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion t..., , (Tue Oct 30, 8:16 pm)
Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion t..., Peter Dolding, (Tue Oct 30, 10:21 pm)
Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion t..., Crispin Cowan, (Wed Oct 31, 2:43 am)
Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion t..., Toshiharu Harada, (Wed Oct 31, 6:10 am)
Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion t..., Peter Dolding, (Wed Oct 31, 10:04 pm)
Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion t..., Casey Schaufler, (Wed Oct 31, 10:20 pm)
Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion t..., Peter Dolding, (Wed Oct 31, 10:51 pm)
Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion t..., Andrew Morgan, (Mon Nov 5, 2:56 am)
Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion t..., Serge E. Hallyn, (Mon Nov 5, 9:29 am)
Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion t..., Jan Engelhardt, (Thu Nov 1, 3:17 am)
Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion t..., David Newall, (Thu Nov 1, 7:49 am)
Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion t..., Peter Dolding, (Sat Nov 3, 9:28 pm)
Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion t..., Peter Dolding, (Wed Oct 31, 5:03 am)
Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion t..., , (Wed Oct 31, 1:08 am)
Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion t..., Casey Schaufler, (Tue Oct 30, 11:43 pm)
Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion t..., Casey Schaufler, (Tue Oct 30, 3:14 pm)
Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion t..., Jan Engelhardt, (Tue Oct 30, 3:50 pm)
Defense in depth: LSM *modules*, not a static interface, Cliffe, (Tue Oct 30, 3:14 am)
Re: Defense in depth: LSM *modules*, not a static interface, Simon Arlott, (Tue Oct 30, 8:30 am)
Re: Defense in depth: LSM *modules*, not a static interface, Crispin Cowan, (Mon Nov 5, 11:46 pm)
Re: Defense in depth: LSM *modules*, not a static interface, Cliffe, (Tue Nov 6, 3:26 am)
Re: Defense in depth: LSM *modules*, not a static interface, Peter Dolding, (Tue Nov 6, 7:59 pm)
Re: Defense in depth: LSM *modules*, not a static interface, Cliffe, (Tue Nov 6, 11:50 pm)
Re: Defense in depth: LSM *modules*, not a static interface, Casey Schaufler, (Tue Nov 6, 11:35 pm)
Re: Defense in depth: LSM *modules*, not a static interface, Tetsuo Handa, (Wed Nov 7, 12:11 am)
Re: Defense in depth: LSM *modules*, not a static interface, Casey Schaufler, (Wed Nov 7, 12:34 am)
Re: Defense in depth: LSM *modules*, not a static interface, Peter Dolding, (Wed Nov 7, 12:34 am)
Re: Defense in depth: LSM *modules*, not a static interface, Al Viro, (Tue Oct 30, 2:55 am)
Re: Defense in depth: LSM *modules*, not a static interface, Crispin Cowan, (Tue Oct 30, 3:55 am)
Re: Defense in depth: LSM *modules*, not a static interface, Casey Schaufler, (Tue Oct 30, 11:01 am)
Re: Defense in depth: LSM *modules*, not a static interface, Cliffe, (Tue Oct 30, 4:00 am)