Re: The Demise of Simple Assurance?

From: Valdis.Kletnieksat_private
Date: Tue Jul 31 2001 - 15:00:50 PDT

  • Next message: Seth Arnold: "Re: The Demise of Simple Assurance?"

    On Tue, 31 Jul 2001 17:55:11 EDT, jmjonesat_private said:
    
    > 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... 
    
    Well... if we're looking at authoritative hooks again, it's not at
    all facetious.  
    
    If we go to authoritative hooks, and stack your module, how close does
    that get us to the original "simple assurance" goal?  Is this someplace
    that a reasonable compromise can be reached?
    
    /Valdis
    
    
    

    _______________________________________________ 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 - 15:01:31 PDT