Re: MAC before DAC vs DAC before MAC

From: David Wagner (dawat_private)
Date: Thu Jul 26 2001 - 11:20:29 PDT

  • Next message: Seth Arnold: "Re: MAC before DAC vs DAC before MAC"

    richard offer  wrote:
    >Take for example the case where a MAC check would deny access, and that the
    >time to perform DAC checks is long.
    
    It is rather difficult for me to imagine a reason why we should
    worry about optimizing for syscalls that are disallowed by policy,
    and that's putting it mildly.  (Some have even suggested the exact
    opposite: namely, that, when you deny a request, you should delay
    for some extra-long period, to deter attacks.)
    
    Do you have any evidence that this affects the end-to-end
    performance of real, legitimate applications?  I'm skeptical.
    
    Maybe it's just me, but I'd want to hear a technical justification
    for optimizing illegal syscalls before using this as a justification
    to change the architecture of LSM.  I've complained about this
    on-list before (and I'm not the only one), and I haven't heard
    such a justification so far.
    
    _______________________________________________
    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 : Thu Jul 26 2001 - 11:47:17 PDT