James Morris wrote: > They are 'restrictive' in that they can only reduce access, not increase > it. > Is there any particular reason why LSM uses stacking? To me the possibiliy of having several, specialized modules called for access checks in the order they were loaded, seems very useful. If one denies, the operation is denied. That way, any LSMs could coexist without the need for stacking implementation in every one. With every LSM restricting access, security wouldn't be any lower (given that capable() is handled in a sensible way), right? Seems like a fairly clean patch. /Tomas (please keep Cc)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jun 29 2004 - 00:42:32 PDT