On Fri, May 20, 2005 at 04:41:23PM -0400, Reiner Sailer wrote:
> James Morris <[email protected]> wrote on 05/20/2005 04:32:58 PM:
> > On Fri, 20 May 2005, Reiner Sailer wrote:
> >
> > > > Why are you using LSM for this?
> > > >
> > > > LSM should be used for comprehensive access control frameworks which
> > > > significantly enhance or even replace existing Unix DAC security.
> > >
> > > I see LSM is framework for security. IMA is an architecture that
> > > enforces access control in a different way than SELinux. IMA guarantees
> > > that executable content is measured and accounted for before
> > > it is loaded and can access (and possibly corrupt) system resources.
> >
> > LSM is an access control framework. Your (few) LSM hooks always return
> > zero, and don't enforce access control at all. You even have a separate
> > measurement hook for modules.
> >
> > I suggest implementing all of your code via distinct measurement hooks, so
> > measurement becomes a distinct and well defined security entity within the
> > kernel.
>
> This is certainly possible. This means that there will be 5 more hooks
> (such as the one in kernel/module.c, see PATCH 4 of 4).
>
> If the kernel maintainers are in favor of this approach, then there is not
> much that stands against this.
Yes, and it will force you to justify those hooks :)
Good luck,
greg k-h
-
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]
