Re: I'm delighted that work on stacking has continued! Thanks!!

From: Valdis.Kletnieks@private
Date: Fri Dec 17 2004 - 14:50:47 PST

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 17:21:40 EST, "David A. Wheeler" said:

> There's another alternative, too.  Instead of making
> the module itself vary its behavior, you could simply write
> a small script that:
> (1) checks for SELinux
> (2) select the "right" digsig module, or pass a parameter, that
>      varies depending on (1).

Hmm.. let me ponder that over the weekend.  Biggest restriction there is that
then my stuff would *have* to be built as a module and loaded later...

> valid shortest-form UTF-8, etc.  Another module (like openwall)
> might forbid certain patterns suggesting bad tempfile use,
> and so on.

Yes, trying to do OpenWall-ish things on an SELinux box was my original

> a whole new kernel.  And I'd like to support a number of
> these small specialized-function LSMs, so that different people
> can create very narrow and specialized checks, and other
> people can mix & match them.

> Indeed, I suspect there would be many of these small LSM
> modules that don't need to store any special state at all
> on processes, etc. (like my filename checking example).

A number of small things (openwall, realtime, and a few others) have
surfaced that certainly look reasonable for stacking, and it *would* be
nice if we could focus on "Do these things compose correctly?" rather than
trying to figure out if we can get them loaded at all.. ;)

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Dec 17 2004 - 14:51:19 PST