--- "Serge E. Hallyn" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Quoting James Morris ([email protected]):
> > Convert LSM into a static interface, as the ability to unload a security
> > module is not required by in-tree users and potentially complicates the
> > overall security architecture.
> >
> > Needlessly exported LSM symbols have been unexported, to help reduce API
> > abuse.
> >
> > Module parameters for the capability and root_plug modules have been
> > converted to kernel parameters.
> >
> > The SECURITY_FRAMEWORK_VERSION macro has also been removed.
>
> Sigh, as much as I would *like* to stay out of this (I don't
> use modules at all on any system where I can avoid it), won't
> it make development - and especially testing - of new lsms
> much more painful and therefore less likely?
While there's lots of pain involved in developing an LSM
modern development environments (e.g. virtual machines)
have reduced the value of loadable modules for debug purposes.
> I realize there has been a dearth of new LSMs to date,
but so much excitment over those proposed!
> but if
> for instance a new solaris 10 based capability module were written,
> well, people would want to be able to
>
> rmmod capability
> modprobe cap_prm
I think the value is overrated. You would never want to do that
in a production environment, and in a debug environment you could
just as easily reboot and get some start-up testing out of the way.
Casey Schaufler
[email protected]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
