On Thu, 7 Jun 2001, Chris Wright wrote: > Assuming no one else has major objections, consider the security_ops > struct exported. No major objection, but could we preserve some of the "obscurity factor" by creating a get_security_ops() call, which passes to the module and could return -EPERM? My thinking is: * Drivers, etcetera, could access it if it was within module policy, * It reduces the exposure of the structure to areas of the kernel+modules where it may not be necessary. By exposing it entirely, you bypass the sanity and "locking" effects of the current code, don't you? Also, exposing it globally allows a "bypass security crack" to live in ANY loadable entity, doesn't it? Yes, I have been told that "once you can install a module you're pretty much lost anyway", but a "policy" was in force that prevented it (one primary registration only) that is now lost. Being a Naive PITA Again, 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 : Fri Jun 08 2001 - 06:36:33 PDT