Quoting Greg KH ([email protected]):
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 09:06:44AM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > Quoting Adrian Bunk ([email protected]):
> > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 10:57:31PM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > > > Quoting James Morris ([email protected]):
> > > > > On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > It's useful for some LSMs to be modular, and LSMs which are y/n options won't
> > > > > > have any security architecture issues with unloading at all.
> > > > >
> > > > > Which LSMs? Upstream, there are SELinux and capabilty, and they're not
> > > > > safe as loadable modules.
> > > > >
> > > > > > The mere fact
> > > > > > that SELinux cannot be built as a module is a rather weak argument for
> > > > > > disabling LSM modules as a whole, so please don't.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's not the argument. Please review the thread.
> > > >
> > > > The argument is 'abuse', right?
> > > >
> > > > Abuse is defined as using the LSM hooks for non-security applications,
> > > > right?
> > > >
> > > > It seems to me that the community is doing a good job of discouraging
> > > > such abuse - by redirecting the "wrong-doers" to implement proper
> > > > upstream solutions, i.e. taskstats, the audit subsystem, etc.
> > > >
> > > > Such encouragement seems a far better response than taking away freedoms
> > > > and flexibility from everyone.
> > >
> > > We are not living in a world where everyone had good intentions...
> >
> > Oh no, i took a wrong turn somewhere :)
> >
> > > For _some_ "wrong-doers" your approach works.
> > >
> > > But how do you convince the "wrong-doers" who do things like putting
> > > MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") into their binary-only modules and who ignore you
> > > and get away because noone sues them?
> >
> > Do these really exist?
>
> Yes they do.
>
> > Maybe noone sues them because noone knows who they are...
>
> Maybe no one knows because the people doing the legal action against
> them are trying to be nice and do it quietly.
So they're being nice to the violaters, and then clamping down on
everyone...
> And legal action takes time, it is quite slow going unfortunatly.
>
> Heck, I've seen code that is even properly licensed under the GPL abuse
> this security layer for things it was not ment to do at all, and that
> stuff comes from _very_ big companies that really should know better...
But that's back to the other type of 'abuse' which i was originally
talking about, and which IMO is being well addressed through education.
As for the others, I have no better suggestions. I wish I did.
> So I agree that we should unexport it. It will make people who want to
> abuse the interface at least think twice about it.
And those who don't abuse it too.
> thanks,
>
> greg "I want to mark structures read-only" k-h
And I know I'm not the one who's going to stop you...
-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]
