Re: [PATCH] Authoritative hooks

From: Stephen Smalley (sdsat_private)
Date: Wed Aug 22 2001 - 06:37:23 PDT

  • Next message: richard offer: "RE: syscall convention"

    So, has anyone looked at the authoritative hooks patch yet?
    This patch was also triggered by the discussion at the Usenix Security BOF
    (http://mail.wirex.com/pipermail/linux-security-module/2001-August/001663.html).
    Crispin described a solution that he believed would satisfy SGI after
    talking with Richard, and seemed willing to accept that solution (See
    the notes).  I advised caution without more precise knowledge of exactly
    what that solution would entail.  So I agreed to resurrect my old
    authoritative hooks patch, update it to the current snapshot of 
    the LSM patch, and post it for consideration by all parties.
    
    From SGI, we need to know how well this patch would meet their needs,
    and what other changes would be necessary (with an example patch showing
    exactly what they mean for some non-trivial case).
    
    From WireX and Greg K-H, we need to know whether even this patch
    acceptable, and, if not, is there some subset of this patch that
    would be acceptable?
    
    The patch should apply cleanly relative to the lsm-2001_08_16 patch.
    Since I finally committed the capget/capset hooks, it definitely
    won't work anymore on the head of the BitKeeper tree, although it
    wouldn't be hard to update it.
    
    --
    Stephen D. Smalley, NAI Labs
    ssmalleyat_private
    
    
    
    
    
    _______________________________________________
    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 22 2001 - 06:39:47 PDT