On Tue, 30 Oct 2001, Casey Schaufler wrote: > ACLs will require a kernel patch with the current LSM. In particular, > the mode bit checks must be circumvented (replaced) where an ACL > is present. This is required by the semantics. No, you can't do it > any other way, that's the way it's specified, and our five > years experiance with the Irix implementation verify it. If the > hook were authoritative, ACLs could use LSM for that part. With > restrictive hooks the code must be patched. Crispin's question is whether your POSIX ACLs implementation would require a kernel patch anyway, in order to support extended attributes on files. If so, then you would need an additional kernel patch regardless of whether LSM has authoritative hooks, so POSIX ACLs wouldn't be a compelling example. I pointed out that you could use a persistent labeling scheme like the one used in SELinux, but I doubt that you are. Do you actually have a POSIX ACL security module that uses LSM and does not require any other kernel patches? -- 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 : Tue Oct 30 2001 - 10:23:42 PST