Re: Possible system call interface for LSM

From: Greg KH (gregat_private)
Date: Mon Aug 13 2001 - 15:31:22 PDT

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

    On Sun, Aug 12, 2001 at 04:54:49AM +0000, David Wagner wrote:
    > But the point is that we need a uniform standard to reliably
    > rule out ambiguous parses.  For instance, we need all modules
    > to agree that the first arg carries a token identifying the
    > intended module.  If different modules have different identification
    > protocols, there is no guarantee that such a type-confusion attack
    > cannot occur.
    
    No we don't need any such "uniform standard".
    
    You need a standard for _your_ user applications to determine if _your_
    security module is currently loaded.  And since you wrote both of them,
    and control both of them, you're set.
    
    SELinux apps don't care if a Janus kernel module is loaded, with the
    exception that it needs to be able to determine if the SELinux module is
    loaded or not.  That's all.
    
    And it is _very_ easy to prevent your module from being unloaded if you
    currently have a user application that is expecting it to be around is
    still running.  Think automatic module use increments when files are
    opened and closed.  Works very nicely, and you don't have to put any
    extra logic in your module.
    
    thanks,
    
    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 : Mon Aug 13 2001 - 15:34:35 PDT