RE: quotactl hook

lachlanat_private

> -----Original Message-----
> From: linux-security-module-adminat_private
> [mailto:linux-security-module-adminat_private]On Behalf Of Seth Arnold
> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 4:02 AM
> To: linux-security-moduleat_private
> Subject: Re: quotactl hook
> 
> 
> On Sat, Sep 01, 2001 at 06:46:36PM -0400, jmjonesat_private wrote:
> > 1) authoritative hooks: YES, NO, CONDITIONAL (how?)
> 
> It is my understanding that we are waiting on SGI to produce a patch
> that Works For Them, then the rest of us will beat on the 
> patch. I tried
> goading SGI into saying whether or not they wanted, really wanted, or
> absolutely needed, an authoritative-hooks patch. :) I think 
> Richard said
> something that would fall between really wanted and absolutely needed.
> 
> We await a patch. :)
Well here it is... it's an updated version of Stephen
Smalley's repost (thanks for the patch Stephen).  The
patch doesn't fix all our problems but it does improve
our situation considerably as it will continue to make
LSM an option for us.  We would, of course, like the
entire patch to be committed but we aren't expecting that
to happen.  Most of the changes are independent of each
other so it is not necessary to have the entire patch
committed (at least not at once :-)).  Some changes, like
to fs/namei.c:permission(), are both simple and critical
to our needs so please don't reject these changes because
of other more intrusive ones.
> 
> > 2) DAC bypass (as an option), YES, NO, CONDITIONAL (how?)
> 
> Allow me to remind everyone of the capable() hook. Go nuts. :)
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> linux-security-module mailing list
> linux-security-moduleat_private
> http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module
> 
---
Lachlan McIlroy                    Phone: +61 3 9596 4155
Trusted Linux                        Fax: +61 3 9596 2960
Adacel Technologies Ltd                    www.adacel.com