Re: Possible system call interface for LSM

Previous message: jmjonesat_private: "Re: Possible system call interface for LSM"
In reply to: jmjonesat_private: "Re: Possible system call interface for LSM"
Next in thread: jmjonesat_private: "Re: Possible system call interface for LSM"
Next in thread: jmjonesat_private: "Re: Possible system call interface for LSM"
Next in thread: jmjonesat_private: "Re: Possible system call interface for LSM"
Reply: jmjonesat_private: "Re: Possible system call interface for LSM"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

gregat_private

On Sun, Aug 12, 2001 at 08:07:34PM -0400, jmjonesat_private wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Aug 2001, Greg KH wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Actually, if the SELinux kernel module allows that to happen by _any_
> > random user app, then the kernel module has a bug :)
> > 
> 
> >From out-of-band...
> 
> Can't a security module block it's own removal using the delete_module 
> hook?  If not, wouldn't it solve this problem completely to make sure a
> security module CAN NOT be removed without the module's permission?

The hook is already there to let you determine if you want to be
unloaded or not.  So yes, I agree with you, eek, what's happening :)

greg k-h

_______________________________________________
linux-security-module mailing list
linux-security-moduleat_private
http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module