Re: Submitting LSM (Was: Re: OLS Bof info)

From: Chris Wright (chrisat_private)
Date: Wed Jul 10 2002 - 13:31:22 PDT

  • Next message: James Morris: "Re: Submitting LSM (Was: Re: OLS Bof info)"

    * Stephen Smalley (sdsat_private) wrote:
    > I'm not clear as to whether we need to continue waiting on the pending VFS
    > changes.  The LSM patch and the existing open source security modules
    > certainly don't depend on any pending VFS changes (although some of the
    > other modules may have dependencies, e.g. SubDomain), so there is no
    > benefit to the LSM project to wait on these changes.  If the VFS changes
    > aren't a high priority to Al Viro, then is it really critical that we
    > wait?
    
    I agree, this is not critical to wait for.
    
    > James pointed out that we can remove the NetFilter IP hooks from LSM and
    > simply let the modules register them as necessary.  Is anyone already
    > working on a patch for this?  Do we also need to make the non-NetFilter
    > IPv4 networking hooks configurable?  What about the skb hooks?  The
    > sock_rcv_skb hook?  The socket layer hooks?  Does this need to be done
    > prior to initial submission of the LSM patch?
    
    The patch will be submitted as pieces.  So these changes may become
    requirements when the networking folks take a look at the patch.
    
    > > Chris wants to convert the VFS interface to a stackable filesystem
    > > layout. Who knows when he will get to it. This ought to eliminate pre,
    > > post, and mediation hooks. (Patrick jokes VVFS.) This functionality
    > > would be useful to more people, such as server-based filesystems,
    > > compressed filesystems, encrypted filesystems, etc. What might be lost?
    > 
    > This seems to be way outside the scope of LSM.  Surely we aren't planning
    > on deferring initial submission of LSM until after this kind of change?
    > Wasn't this idea rejected a long time ago due to being out of scope and
    > due to concerns with exposing too much kernel functionality to loadable
    > kernel modules?
    
    Yes, this is not intended for submission.  And no, I don't see any
    concern with exposing too much functionality this way.  It's already
    possible to plug in a filesystem (i.e. the bits needed are already
    exposed).
    
    thanks,
    -chris
    -- 
    Linux Security Modules     http://lsm.immunix.org     http://lsm.bkbits.net
    _______________________________________________
    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 Jul 10 2002 - 13:33:25 PDT