* Serge E. Hallyn ([email protected]) wrote:
> 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 :)
The problem with being more general is it becomes a more attractive
target for abuse.
thanks,
-chris
-
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]
