Re: [PATCH] remove sys_security

From: Crispin Cowan (crispinat_private)
Date: Fri Oct 18 2002 - 01:31:35 PDT

  • Next message: David S. Miller: "Re: [PATCH] remove sys_security"

    David S. Miller wrote:
    
    >Anything which passes a completely opaque value through a system
    >call is a sign of trouble, design wise.
    >
    That's interesting. Passing a completely opaque value (actually an 
    integer) through the system call was exactly what we designed it to do, 
    because we saw a design need for pecisely that: so that applications 
    with awareness of a specific module can talk to the module.
    
    Could you elaborate on why this is a sign of trouble, design wise?
    
    >There is simply no way we can enfore proper portable typing by
    >all these security module authors such that we can do any kind
    >of proper 32-bit/64-bit syscall translation on the ports that
    >need to do this.
    >
    THAT I would love to hear about. If all we have to do to save 
    sys_security is change its signature, that'd be great.
    
    >If we do things such as the fs stacking or fs filter ideas,
    >that eliminates a whole swath of the facilities the security_ops
    >"provide".  No ugly syscalls passing opaque types through the kernel
    >to some magic module, but rather a real facility that is useful
    >to many things other than LSM.
    >
    Yes, that will be wonderful. And the LSM team will be pleased to re-work 
    the desing when stackable file systems appear and we can take advantage 
    of them.
    
    Crispin
    
    
    
    

    _______________________________________________ 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 : Fri Oct 18 2002 - 01:32:27 PDT