Re: The Demise of Simple Assurance?

From: jmjonesat_private
Date: Tue Jul 31 2001 - 14:55:11 PDT

  • Next message: Valdis.Kletnieksat_private: "Re: The Demise of Simple Assurance?"

    On Tue, 31 Jul 2001 Valdis.Kletnieksat_private wrote:
    
    > On Tue, 31 Jul 2001 17:20:28 EDT, jmjonesat_private said:
    > 
    > > Dr. Wagner has alluded to this many times... a construct that forces
    > > modules to be more restrictive without imposing on the interface.  With 
    > > stacking, this an achievable objective.
    > 
    > ooh.. a more concrete proposal than my "with appropriate programming
    > style"..  I stand trumped. ;)
    > 
    > /Valdis
    > 
    
    
    One minor problem... the hooks need to get authoritative or post-in-kernel
    with a passed value (along the lines of my previous suggestion) to make
    our module really work.  Passing the in-kernel checks to the "simple
    assurance" module allows that module to return a refusal therefrom
    pre-emptively, without passing anything to the service routines for the
    hooks.  Other problems, like copy-and-pass could be handled by this
    stackable module... 
    
    Or were you being totally facetious?
    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 : Tue Jul 31 2001 - 14:56:26 PDT