Cliffe wrote:
quoted text
> If we had stackable LSMs then the required functionality could simply 
> be built into the LSM interface. Then the anti-malware would simply 
> stack itself with other LSMs. In my opinion this is a perfect example 
> for the argument of stackable LSMs.

No argument from me.

quoted text
> So far we mainly have LSMs which provide an extra access control 
> mechanism (in addition to DAC).

Yes. This is the design center for the LSM.

quoted text
> IMHO, Ideally DAC could be another stackable LSM (enabled by default).

Yup. Search the archives for "authoritative hooks".

quoted text
> Other security schemes such as intrusion detection, 
> firewalls/netfilter, anti-malware, and application restrictions 
> (sandboxes such as jails or finer grained restrictions such as 
> AppArmor) could all register LSMs onto the stack.

Stacking is easy for files. It's a real pain in the backside for UDP 
packets.

quoted text
> Additional infrastructure would be necessary. Permissible security 
> remains a item of contention. Perhaps I am naive but I think most LSMs 
> could work based on accept/reject. Where every LSM must accept an 
> action in order for it to be carried out.

Please propose patches.

quoted text
> MHO,

Oh, humility isn't all it's cracked up to be. Show us all up and
write the code. I'm serious, I don't think there's anyone here who
would object to a really good stacking scheme.

--
unsubscribe notice
To 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/