> Quoting Kees Cook (
kees.cook@canonical.com):
> > > > I still think simple chaining is the way to go. I want to review the
> > > > earlier discussions first (I think Serge said it was in 2004ish?) before I
> > > > write up anything. There is, I think, one sticking point, which is
> > > > /proc/self/attr/current, but beyond that, I think some simple
> > > > reorganization of LSM initialization routines and a list that security_*
> > > > walks would be sufficient.
> > >
> > > In the past, output results for each LSM were simply split by \n or a :
> > > or something, and input was prepended by the LSM name.
> >
> > This doesn't appear to be true anymore. Looking at the fs/proc/base.c and
> > security/selinux/hooks.c code, there is no checking for a prepended LSM
> > name. Maybe that's the first chaining limitation -- you can't chain 2 LSMs
> > that both declare setprocattr hooks.
>
> No no, Stephen and I were talking about in the stacker patchset, again
> around 2004-2005. Never went upstream (per 2005 or 2006 ksummit
> agreement).
