--On Tuesday, August 14, 2001 10:49 PM -0700 Crispin Cowan <crispinat_private> wrote: * Stephen Smalley wrote: * *> On Mon, 13 Aug 2001, Chris Wright wrote: * *> > * in-kernel check vs. lsm-check ordering *> I thought that this was resolved, with the decision being that we place *> the LSM hooks after the DAC logic whenever feasible. This was already *> the case for many of the hooks, and I think I moved the remaining ones *> when feasible. * * I agree with that, but wasn't convinced we had actually established a * consensus. In particular, I want to know whether shifting from * restrictive to authoritative hooks eases SGI's issue with DAC-first. I thought I'd said that it was acceptable, but speaking to Crispin yesterday it appears that he was still waiting for an ok. Ok. Provided that the hook is passed the error code of the proceding DAC check, and that the hook is not bypassed by early returns or jumps. The second point may require some judicious code changes. I also expect some push back from some people, but if the hook is bypassed its not authoritative. * * Thanks, * Crispin * richard. -- Richard Offer Technical Lead, Trust Technology, SGI "Specialization is for insects" _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ 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 : Wed Aug 15 2001 - 10:41:34 PDT