Re: Possible system call interface for LSM

From: Stephen Smalley (sdsat_private)
Date: Fri Aug 10 2001 - 11:57:47 PDT

  • Next message: richard offer: "Re: Possible system call interface for LSM"

    On Fri, 10 Aug 2001, Greg KH wrote:
    
    > If we add it, what value does it really have?
    > If you are stacking modules you had better know how to do it.  Hence you
    > will know to keep your syscall call parameter unique to let your stacked
    > modules handle things properly.  Since it's 32 bits, you have plenty of
    > room to keep things from stomping on each other :)
    
    I'm not worried about stacking modules (currently).  I just want my
    modified applications to be able to test for the presence of the SELinux
    module and to fall back on ordinary Unix behavior if it is not present.
    In the original SELinux prototype, they just tried one of the new 
    syscalls (the one that just returns the current process SID) and
    checked for ENOSYS.  With LSM, the syscall is always present but
    SELinux might not be, so I want a magic number/module id that I can use.
    Naturally, I also need the dummy syscall function to always return
    something like -ENOPKG.
    
    --
    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 : Fri Aug 10 2001 - 12:00:23 PDT