Re: Thinking about stacking in LSM: merge registering, add info about field use to security_operations

From: Matt Piotrowski (matt.piotrowskiat_private)
Date: Thu Jul 18 2002 - 19:11:35 PDT

  • Next message: Lachlan McIlroy: "Re: Thinking about stacking in LSM: merge registering, add info about field use to security_operations"

    On Thursday 18 July 2002 06:39 pm, Chris Wright wrote:
    
    > * David Wheeler (dwheelerat_private) wrote:
    
    > > It's not clear to me that a multiplexor could really
    > > "account for it properly", since it doesn't have the
    > > information it needs to detect this problem.  Actually,
    >
    > It's simple.  Keep a stack of security ptrs.  Swap out for the module
    > specific ptr before you ask the module's opinion and iterate through
    > the module stack.
    
    Hmmm, seems like there would be complications.  Consider a security module 
    which, for whatever reason, does something like this:
    
    current->security->inheritable_trait = 
    current->p_pptr->security->inheritable_trait;
    
    The left-hand side would be fine because of the swap, but would the right-hand 
    side be?  That is, would the multiplexor module swap the parent task's 
    security ptr as well?  It seems like a multiplexor module would be very hard 
    with the current interface because modules are written to access the security 
    blob directly.
    
    
    Matt
    
    _______________________________________________
    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 : Thu Jul 18 2002 - 19:13:43 PDT