Re: The Demise of Simple Assurance?

From: richard offer (offerat_private)
Date: Tue Jul 31 2001 - 17:58:05 PDT

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

    * frm jmjonesat_private "07/31/01 20:45:51 -0400" | sed '1,$s/^/* /'
    *
    * On Tue, 31 Jul 2001, richard offer wrote:
    * 
    *> 
    *> I thought that being fully authoritative using a single hook implied
    *> moving current kernel logic out into a module. There would be no issues
    *> with module/in-kernel sequence since there would be no in-kernel.
    * 
    * "Fully Authoritative" vs. "Simply Authoritative".  I don't think moving
    * logic OUT of the kernel in order to reproduce it in the modules was ever
    * something agreed upon.  I may be wrong.
    
    You're right, my misreading of authoritative.
    
    * 
    * Not that I think this is a bad idea, largely, but I think it has been
    * "argued down" for many reasons.  Even eliminating the "simple-assurance"
    * argument, there is the issue of "kernel invasion".  Do you have a response
    * to that argument?
    
    I suppose you want something more than its the right thing to do ? :-)
    
    * 
    * 
    * J. Melvin Jones
    
    richard.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Richard Offer                     Technical Lead, Trust Technology, SGI
    "Specialization is for insects"
    _______________________________________________________________________
    
    
    _______________________________________________
    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 - 18:03:41 PDT