On Sun, Feb 09, 2003 at 07:40:17PM -0800, Crispin Cowan wrote: > > Also unsupported: The "no-security" model -- where all security > >is thrown out (to save memory space and cycles) that was desired for embedded work. > > > False: capabilities is now a removable module, which is what Linus asked > for. It's not. You put a bit of capability logic into a LSM module, but all the specific calls to capable are still around and turned into an LSM hook - often near another hook. > >_\implemented\_ (team members & prjct lead Linda Walsh) to move all > >security checks out of the kernel into a 'default policy' module. > >The code to implement this was submitted to the LSM list in June 1991. > > > And I actually like that plan. But I still believe it to be too radical > for 2.6. It's too later for 2.6 _now_. If you started doing this in early 2.5 we'd have a much less messy ACC architecture by now. > It has many nice properties, but is much more invasive to the > kernel. I think it is a very interesting idea for 2.7, and should be > floated past the maintainers who will be impacted to see if it has a > hope in hell. *nod* and until we get that gets implemented we should remove the current mess.. _______________________________________________ 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 Feb 10 2003 - 00:22:07 PST