On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 09:05:19PM -0400, jmjonesat_private wrote: > I also am very concerned that LSM hasn't given REAL attention to race > conditions. While I know of mechanisms to moderate this problem, and have > no doubt my knowledge is severely limitted, I would suggest that "SMP/Race > tolerant" or better would be a GREAT arguing factor *FOR* LSM. I don't think that race conditions have been overlooked when placing hooks. Generally, if a hook could suffer from race conditions, so could the kernel code -- and the kernel developers have tried to protect important structures with locks. Mostly, the evidence of care about races doesn't show up in the patches, but that the headers list which locks are held in which hooks shows that someone has taken the time to examine possible races.. I don't think the kernel should claim value for the kernel by saying that we help with race conditions; kernel races will still remain with or without LSM. (Though, if anyone finds any races in the kernel while working on LSM code, it might help our reputation some to point out those races... :) Cheers! :) _______________________________________________ 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 Oct 01 2001 - 18:50:10 PDT