Re: Possible system call interface for LSM

From: Casey Schaufler (caseyat_private)
Date: Tue Aug 14 2001 - 10:14:39 PDT

  • Next message: jmjonesat_private: "Re: Making forward progress"

    Greg KH wrote:
    
    > 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.
    
    Actually, I would like to offer multiple policies to my
    customers, perhaps even SELinux as well as CAPP (C2) and
    LSPP (B1) to augment the "traditional" policy. I want one
    version of ls, login (PAM modules, actually), su, ps, etc which
    enforce and/or report based on the policy installed. 
    
    Yes, I can do that in my own, special private copy of ls.c,
    but I'd rather share it with the world.
    
    For my own evil purposes, of course.
    
    -- 
    
    Casey Schaufler				Manager, Trust Technology, SGI
    caseyat_private				voice: 650.933.1634
    casey_pat_private			Pager: 888.220.0607
    
    _______________________________________________
    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 : Tue Aug 14 2001 - 10:16:47 PDT