Quoting Chris Wright ([email protected]):
> * [email protected] ([email protected]) wrote:
> > Quoting Chris Wright ([email protected]):
> > > The primary purpose of the hooks is access control. Some of them, of
> > > course, are helpers to keep labels coherent. IIRC, James objected
> > > because the measurement data was simply collected from these hooks.
> >
> > Ok, so to be clear, any module which does not directly impose some form
> > of access control is not eligible for an LSM?
>
> That's exactly the intention, yes.
Ok, thanks.
I thought it was intended to be more general than that - in fact I
specifically thought it was not intended to be purely for single machine
authentication decisions within a single kernel module, but that anything
which would aid in enabling new security features, locally or remotely,
would be game. (Which - it means nothing - but I would clearly have
preferred :)
Thanks for setting me straight.
-serge
-
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]
