Re: Possible system call interface for LSM

From: Greg KH (gregat_private)
Date: Fri Aug 10 2001 - 17:15:35 PDT

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

    On Fri, Aug 10, 2001 at 05:01:31PM -0700, richard offer wrote:
    > 
    > I could have no way to determine if my policy is loaded. Seriously, I
    > don't. Audit is invisible, so is MAC.
    
    But your module isn't.  Look in /proc/modules.  Call query_module(2).
    Any number of different ways to do this.
    
    > I'm not going to go and create a pseudo file system just to let
    > applications know that my policy is loaded. That's bogus. You'd rather
    > increase the kernel size than pass one extra parameter?
    
    No, I'd rather not overload an existing clean interface (syscalls) with
    a new functionality that will take time (computer time with the extra
    parameter) and administrative time (with people forced to register their
    modules with some central authority.)
    
    And how much bloat is creating a single /proc entry to let your
    userspace programs know that your module is loaded?
    
    Come on, syscalls are not meant to do this.  This shouldn't even be an
    argument.
    
    greg k-h
    
    _______________________________________________
    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 - 17:17:56 PDT