Re: Names vs. Inodes

From: Crispin Cowan (crispinat_private)
Date: Mon Jul 23 2001 - 10:50:27 PDT

  • Next message: Seth Arnold: "Re: Names vs. Inodes"

    jmjonesat_private wrote:
    
    > Yes, I understand this now.  However, since it requires the confined
    > process to be executed as root and then confined (i think) it circumvents
    > many of those restrictions in favor of its own model.  This is very
    > useful, but I have some issues with it.
    >
    > Because this discussion is somewhat off-topic and based on
    > theoreticals/philosophy, rather than being strictly forward moving via
    > the code, I've moved it to lsm-discussionat_private to hash it out
    > before returning it here with (hopefully) more on-topic results.
    
    More important, it is getting into the range of debating the merrits of one
    LSM module/model over another, which is explicitly off topic here.  The only
    reason we care at all about what a module does is to understand if there is a
    legitimate purpose to a requested new hook.  Other than that, bashing each
    other's modules around is entirlely counterproductive.
    
    Crispin
    
    --
    Crispin Cowan, Ph.D.
    Chief Scientist, WireX Communications, Inc. http://wirex.com
    Security Hardened Linux Distribution:       http://immunix.org
    Available for purchase: http://wirex.com/Products/Immunix/purchase.html
    
    
    
    
    _______________________________________________
    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 : Mon Jul 23 2001 - 10:52:25 PDT