Re: Possible system call interface for LSM

From: Stephen Smalley (sdsat_private)
Date: Thu Aug 09 2001 - 09:41:47 PDT

  • Next message: Jesse Pollard: "Re: Possible system call interface for LSM"

    On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, richard offer wrote:
    
    >     int  (* syscall)        (int cmd, int copy_flag, void *data, int
    > *length);
    
    I was thinking it would be something more like the socketcall interface,
    e.g.
    	int (*syscall) (int call, unsigned long *args)
    
    The number of arguments can either be determined from 'call' or
    (for a call with varying arguments) by making one of the elements
    of  'args' specify a length.  And the generic security system call
    would be the same except for having the additional module_id/magic
    number parameter.  I would suggest that the generic security system call
    not do any copying at all, and merely defer all handling of that
    processing to the module.  This seems reasonable for implementing new
    system calls, unlike the other security hooks where we don't want to pass
    user space pointers.  
    
    > The only problem I have about having security.h maintaining the list of
    > policy ID numbers is that that is going to have to change everytime someone
    > writes a new policy. 
    
    This is a good point.  With the current SELinux module, the module
    id/magic number is only defined in our header files that are used
    by our module and our library.  There is no real reason to put
    these values in the security.h file.  But we do need a way of
    registering values to avoid conflicts.
    
    --
    Stephen D. Smalley, NAI Labs
    ssmalleyat_private
    
    
    
    
    
    
    _______________________________________________
    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 Aug 09 2001 - 14:32:31 PDT