A Comment from User Space

From: jmjonesat_private
Date: Sun Apr 15 2001 - 16:57:35 PDT

  • Next message: Crispin Cowan: "Re: linux-security-module digest, Vol 1 #12 - 7 msgs"

    Hello, Everyone:
    
    I've been using Linux since she was a pup, first as a toy,
    and now for production systems in a variety of different ways.
    I'm *NOT* a kernel hacker, as such, but have been building and 
    tweaking systems since i pieced together my own 8080 way back
    in the 70s.
    
    I like the idea of being able to load modules into Linux that
    will overlay the current security model and protect kernel objects
    from tampering and grant much finer permissions/privileges to 
    specific processes, but would like to voice the following concerns 
    from the "guys who are gonna have to use this system" end:
    
    1) OVERHEAD OVERHEAD OVERHEAD.  One of the great things about 
       Linux is you can still get good performance out of a MIPS
       Nevada 1.0 or Intel Pentium I 133.  1% may seem reasonable, 
       with Moore's Law working and all, but it can be a real make 
       or break.  Please shoot for something more economical than 
       that, or consider ways to optimize the kernel to "enhance 
       away" the performance hit.
    
    2) SIZE.  The Kernel is already much too large and heavy for 
       my taste, although I love every little tweak that's been 
       added.  Could some of the EXISTING internal functions be 
       moved to a "default module" which would be replaced by 
       an enhanced security module, thereby recovering some of
       the cost in resource?
    
    3) TRANSPARENCY.  I spend a lot of time testing and hardening
       and kludging security systems at the application level.
       While it is arguable that providing access to capabilities/
       permissions/privileges to userspace programs could introduce
       more overhead and, possibly, vulnerability,  I can actually
       envision an "aware" program polling for it's permissions and 
       abandoning some of it's OWN internal security checking because
       it is being provided by an underlying layer, resulting in a 
       recovery of some overhead.
    
       If a "general purpose interface" can be devised that would 
       provide meaningful information to userspace programs about 
       their environment, regardless of the specific module, it 
       would be useful "out here in the common lands."
    
    
    I'm fairly new to this list, and, perhaps, I don't fully understand
    enough of the picture or issues, yet, but, as an "audience member" 
    I'd sure like to see consideration of some of these issues in these
    early stages.
    
    Sincerely,
    J. Melvin Jones
    
    |>------------------------------------------------------
    ||  J. MELVIN JONES            jmjonesat_private 
    |>------------------------------------------------------
    ||  Microcomputer Systems Consultant  
    ||  Software Developer
    ||  Web Site Design, Hosting, and Administration
    ||  Network and Systems Administration
    |>------------------------------------------------------
    ||  http://www.jmjones.com/
    |>------------------------------------------------------
    
    
    _______________________________________________
    linux-security-module mailing list
    linux-security-moduleat_private
    http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Apr 15 2001 - 16:58:59 PDT