Re: New LSM patch for consideration

From: Casey Schaufler (caseyat_private)
Date: Wed Jun 13 2001 - 10:27:49 PDT

  • Next message: Chris Wright: "Re: New LSM patch for consideration"

    Chris Wright wrote:
    
    > The only thing I'm skeptical of is the need for authoritative hooks.
    > The checks are after capable() which provides coarse grained permissive
    > hooks since capable calls in to the module.  If you pass the capable
    > test, then you have already overriden the DAC logic.  Why do you need to
    > give another permissive test?
    
    If you're writing a module which does audit (we'll
    have hook proposals by the end of the month, probably
    sooner) you need to do the capability (or Superuser)
    check after the DAC check so that you can record the
    decision properly. You don't want to say that someone
    got access because they had privilege when the file
    is mode 777.
    
    
    -- 
    
    Casey Schaufler				Manager, Trust Technology, SGI
    caseyat_private				voice: 650.933.1634
    casey_pat_private			Pager: 888.220.0607
    
    _______________________________________________
    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 : Wed Jun 13 2001 - 10:29:32 PDT