Jan Engelhardt wrote:MultiAdmin loaded before Selinux breaks Selinux since Multi Admin rules are applied over using Selinux rules. This is just the way it is stacking LSM's is Just not healthy you always risk on LSM breaking another. Part of the reason why I have suggested a complete redesign of LSM. To get away from this problem of stacking. I see MultiAdmin purely in the class of posix file capabilities( Fine grained replacement to SUID). This is a standard feature fix not part of LSM. Note it can not replace all SUID bits due to some internals of applications design need to be changed to support posix file capabilities in particular not checking if running as UID 0. Traditional UID 0 is already optional for applications without LSM's. Posix file capabilities only applies to applications only. MultiAdmin being the user mirror of Posix file capabilities. MultiAdmin patch to the user side may allow more SUID bits to be killed off from the start line. So increasing overall system security. Of course MultiAdmin might end up two halfs. One a standard feature that hands out capabilities to users that LSMs can overrule. And one a user by user directory access control LSM directory control LSM less likely to cause problems. I really don't see the need for a LSM stacking order. Some features just should not be LSM's in my eyes. MultiAdmin is one of them. Traditional way has all ready been expanded for applications without LSM's. So my call still stand O heck head ache rating. Because its in the wrong place. Particularly when you think people will want to use it stacked with other LSM's. Stacking should be avoided where able. This means at least some of Multiadmin features just have to be done core kernel as a normal kernel module to avoid stacking and breaking the LSM. Note posix file capabilities was developed as a LSM module too at first the point came where it was going to cause more trouble for other LSMs granting stuff in conflict. Both Multiadmin and posix file capabilities share a lot in common. Both developed in the wrong place. Both required to be else where. Even there function is similar breaking down root powers and handing them out more effectively. So in my eyes it is a pure Posix extension not a LSM. Peter Dolding -
| Stephen Smalley | Re: [AppArmor 39/45] AppArmor: Profile loading and manipulation, pathname matching |
| Tarkan Erimer | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Jan Engelhardt | intel iommu (Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23) |
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 005/196] Chinese: add translation of SubmittingDrivers |
git: | |
| David Fenyes | sigsetmask()? (LINUX) |
| Stephen Tweedie | Unmounting root (no kidding!) [was: Some Linux problems---solved] |
| Les Andrzejewski | X386/WD90C31/SUMSUNG SYNC MASTER 4 |
| Doug Evans | Re: Stabilizing Linux |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| Linus Torvalds | Re: [GIT]: Networking |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Herbert Xu | Re: [PATCH] myr10ge: again fix lro_gen_skb() alignment |
