Re: Removing EXPORT_SYMBOL(security_ops) (was Re: Time to remove LSM)

[Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>]

On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 17:23 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 09:15:52AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 10:20:11AM -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 08:00 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > I agree.  In looking over the code some more, I'm trying to figure out
> > > > why we are exporting that variable at all.  Is it because of people
> > > > wanting to stack security modules?
> > > > 
> > > > I see selinux code using it, but you are always built into the kernel,
> > > > right?  So unexporting it would not be an issue to you.
> > > 
> > > Various in-tree modules (e.g. ext3) call security hooks via the static
> > > inlines and end up referencing security_ops directly.  We'd have to wrap
> > > all such hooks in the same manner as capable and permission.
> > 
> > Ah, and people like making their file systems as modules :(
> 
> But actually yes, calling into rndom lsm hooks in modules is not a good
> thing.a  The only think filesystems calls is security_inode_init_security
> and it would make a lot of sense to make that an out of line wrapper
> instead of exporting security_ops.

There are other cases as well, I think, e.g. af_unix calls certain hooks
to ensure mediation of even the abstract namespace.  But the problem is
avoided altogether if the security static inlines compile down to direct
selinux function calls (which can be exported as needed).

-- 
Stephen Smalley
National Security Agency

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/