Re: [RFC][PATCH] Security hook for vm_enough_memory

Previous message: Stephen Smalley: "[RFC][PATCH] Security hook for vm_enough_memory"
In reply to: Stephen Smalley: "[RFC][PATCH] Security hook for vm_enough_memory"
Next in thread: Stephen Smalley: "Re: [RFC][PATCH] Security hook for vm_enough_memory"
Reply: Stephen Smalley: "Re: [RFC][PATCH] Security hook for vm_enough_memory"
Reply: Stephen Smalley: "Re: [RFC][PATCH] Security hook for vm_enough_memory"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

alanat_private

On Llu, 2003-06-23 at 17:25, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> This patch for 2.5.73 replaces the CAP_SYS_ADMIN test in
> vm_enough_memory with a security_vm_allocate hook call so that security
> modules such as SELinux can distinguish this test from other
> CAP_SYS_ADMIN checks.  This change is necessary since the
> vm_enough_memory capability check is applied to all processes that
> allocate mappings and we don't want to spuriously audit CAP_SYS_ADMIN
> denials generated by this test.  If anyone has any objections to this
> patch, please let me know.  Thanks.

Is there any reason for not wrapping the entire vm_enough_memory() function
and using the current one as default. In some environments being able to make
total commit constraints based on roles may actually be useful.

(Think "sum of students memory < 40% of system" 8))

vm_enough_memory has to be kernel side but its basically policy so pluggable
IMHO is good.

_______________________________________________
linux-security-module mailing list
linux-security-moduleat_private
http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module