Re: [BK PATCH] LSM changes for 2.5.59

From: Crispin Cowan (crispinat_private)
Date: Sun Feb 09 2003 - 17:39:26 PST

  • Next message: LA Walsh: "RE: [BK PATCH] LSM changes for 2.5.59"

    Christoph Hellwig wrote:
    
    >you don't get tru security by adding hooks.  security needs a careful
    >design and more strict access control policy can but don't have to be part
    >of that design.
    >
    LSM does have a careful design. The design goal was to permit loadable 
    kernel modules to mediate access to critical kernel objects by user 
    level processes. By providing such a facility, LSM enables arbitrary 
    security policies and policy management engines to be implemented as 
    loadable modules. This solves the "make one size fit all" problem of 
    diverse interests lobbying Linus to adopt one security model or another 
    as the Linux standard. The LSM design saves Linus from having to make 
    such a  choice by allowing end-users to make their own choice, meeting a 
    goal stated by Linus nearly two years ago.
    
    >The real problem is adding mess to the kernel.
    >
    Christoph's problem is likely that he doesn't like the design. Fair 
    enough, can't please everyone, but a lot of effort went into that 
    design. I also suspect that Christoph does not approve of Linus' design 
    goal either, but he's never said that when I was looking.
    
    Crispin
    
    -- 
    Crispin Cowan, Ph.D.
    Chief Scientist, WireX                      http://wirex.com/~crispin/
    Security Hardened Linux Distribution:       http://immunix.org
    			    Just say ".Nyet"
    
    
    
    

    _______________________________________________ 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 : Sun Feb 09 2003 - 17:40:25 PST