Re: New stacker performance results

From: serue@private
Date: Wed May 25 2005 - 08:33:11 PDT

Quoting James Morris (jmorris@private):
> On Wed, 25 May 2005, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> > - using SELinux as the shared framework and directly integrating them
> > into it so that they can leverage its policy abstractions as well and
> > serve to reinforce the access controls rather than being redundant.
> Given that nobody has come up with an upstream alternative to SELinux 
> since the merging of LSM, this should certainly be considered.

I wouldn't mind trying an implementation of digsig inside of selinux,
though I'm not sure when I would get the time.  It should be quick,
though.  And once that was in place, the TPM-based integrity
authorization module would be simple to convert.

But the fact remains that there are people who won't want to run
selinux.  As we improve the selinux policy tools (and once this stacker
thing settles down I can finally get back to that!) that will diminish,
but in the meantime that is the situation.  And so for now, it certainly
seems valid to run digsig+seclvl or seclvl+the tpm authorization module.

> In fact, there has recently been some discussion about removing LSM
> completely and just using SELinux directly.

Where was that?  I'd like to see the discussion.  Who knows, I may end
up agreeing.  Or at least, I may end up agreeing that *eventually*
that's the place to go.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Wed May 25 2005 - 08:33:57 PDT