Re: Stacking - anyone care how to report module id's?

From: jmjonesat_private
Date: Mon Aug 26 2002 - 11:24:47 PDT

  • Next message: David Wheeler: "Re: linux-security-module digest, Vol 1 #575 - 5 msgs"

    On Mon, 26 Aug 2002, Greg KH wrote:
    
    > Come on people, if there is a real problem, I'd be glad to deal with it.
    > And as there is no posted code showing a problem, I think this thread
    > should just die.
    
    
    Chiming in before this thread "dies."
    
    I fully understand the thinking behind the need for specifying the 
    module id to the stacker so it can implement a policy regarding who gets
    the syscall, in which order, and what responses from which subordinate
    module should be returned in which way and how.  I'll call that the
    "stacker policy."
    
    This is not the place for a discussion of the value of one stacker-policy
    over another, IMHO, since there has long been a habit of not preferring
    ANY policy over another in modules... and a stacker is a module.  Perhaps
    ONE stacker will need to poll several modules to gain a consensus, another
    may give a SPECIFIC module full rights-of-rejection.
    
    It seems that the attempt here is to provide a stacker that can adapt to 
    "foreign" modules.  The consensus has been that combining module NOT
    written specifically interoperate is a fool's game ... and potentially
    very dangerous.
    
    I believe there are techniques to address this problem already existant in
    module-families which are specifically CODED to interoperate. 
    
    While I absolutely agree with Cowen , Kletnieks, et al, I have to say that
    Greg's policy of "show the need with actual applications, then resolve a
    consensus as to how LSM can provide a common advantage to those
    applications, THEN... cautiously... add it to the interface" is more
    consistant with the past practices of this project and, therefore, should
    win the day, and better for overall Linux Security.
    
    Yeah, I know... I'll be fighting FOR this change, eventually,
    But, for NOW, it's, IMHO, inconsistant,
    I'm saving stuff like this for TNG, if it happens,
    Push it to TNG?
    
    J. Melvin Jones
     
    
    
    *-------------------------------------------------------
    * J. Melvin Jones                http://www.jmjones.com/
    * Webmaster, System Administrator, Network Administrator
    * ------------------------------------------------------
    
    
    
    
    
    _______________________________________________
    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 Aug 26 2002 - 11:28:31 PDT