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

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

view
thread

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

[view in full thread]

From: David Newall <david@...>

To: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...>

Cc: Peter Dolding <oiaohm@...>, <casey@...>, Toshiharu Harada <haradats@...>, Crispin Cowan <crispin@...>, <linux-kernel@...>, <linux-security-module@...>

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

Date: Thursday, November 1, 2007 - 7:49 am

Jan Engelhardt wrote:
quoted text> On Nov 1 2007 12:51, Peter Dolding wrote:
>   
>> This is above me doing code.   No matter how many fixes I do to the
>> core that will not fix dysfunction in the LSM section.  Strict
>> policies on fixing the main security model will be required.
>>     
>
> If there is no one wanting to fix the existing code, then the
> perceived problem is not a problem.

What an absurd claim.
-
unsubscribe noticeTo unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

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)

Navigation

Popular discussions


linux-kernel:
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
Greg KH	[GIT PATCH] driver core patches against 2.6.24
Robin Holt	Re: Linux 2.6.26-rc1
git:

linux-activists:
David Fenyes	sigsetmask()? (LINUX)
Theodore Ts'o	Re: SVGA-alphanum. modes
Rob Coleman	S3
Ian Kluft	2nd CFV and VOTE ACK: comp.os.linux reorganization
openbsd-misc:

Colocation donated by:

Who's online

There are currently 3 users and 726 guests online.

Online users

Syndicate